Xringfighter
Member
The greatest downfall of the 1911 is that it is not parts interchangeable with the Chevy 350 or the Ford 302.
zachsm said:I don't understand what the big deal is.
By this kind of reasoning, Rembrandt van Rijn has been eclipsed by Jeff Koons and Mark Kostabi.
Incidentally, P210 is still in service with the Swiss army and the Danish Special Forces. Surplus M/49 pistols have been issued to the Latvian elite troops since 2006.
To spell out the obvious, I am claiming that supporting the quality of the M1911 with observations that it is still made today by dozens of companies, modified by thousands more for a wide, wide range of uses, is no more compelling than supporting the quality of the Big Mac with banners of millions served. If there is a difference in the logic of these arguments, I would be very grateful to anyone willing and able to explain it.
I am not sure that Deming has ever given a definition of quality, in so many words. But he did say that variation is the enemy of quality, and on that account, the quality of an M1911 is inferior to that of a P210. For milspec P210 pistols were designed and manufactured for drop-in part fit. Whereas as a matter of design, the same level of accuracy of an M1911 depends on variation in the dimensions of the barrel bushing and link, individually hand-fitted to each handgun. I take this as evidence of design fault.As defined by Demming, quality is adherence to a standard. In this case, I would suggest that a Big Mac is quality made. It may not be up to your standard of fine dinning, but it does closely follow the rule of quality...i.e. adhering to a standard.To spell out the obvious, I am claiming that supporting the quality of the M1911 with observations that it is still made today by dozens of companies, modified by thousands more for a wide, wide range of uses, is no more compelling than supporting the quality of the Big Mac with banners of millions served. If there is a difference in the logic of these arguments, I would be very grateful to anyone willing and able to explain it.
In refenece to the 1911, the fact that it has lasted and has been so malleable for almost a hundred years is testimony not to the manufacturing quality of every 1911, but to its design.
I have no bone to pick with th 210, but the 1911 is a fine handgun.
Other factors being equal, more accurate guns are better than less accurate ones. Other factors being equal, more uniform parts fit in guns is better than less uniform parts fit. I have pointed out the shortcomings of the M1911 design in this regard, relative to the P210. Rebutting this analysis with claims that the M1911 is "more than accurate enough to save ol' skinny at 50 feet" amounts to a change of subject.Using one or two aspects of any arm to determine its superiority is false logic. We can have a remarkably accurate weapon that drives us 'round the bend trying to get it to work...or we can have one that we can fill with toothpaste without causing it to miss a beat, yet can't hit the water with it if we were standin' on a boat. "Ideal" therefore, must fall between the two extremes.
The true measure of the utility of a piece is much more than that. It must be reliable. It must be durable. It must be easy to service in diverse places, far removed from an armory. It must be accurate enough to fill its intended role.
If a personal sidearm will keep all its shots in a 6-inch circle at 50 yards...it's more than accurate enough to save ol' skinny at 50 feet. 6 inches at 50 yards is a fairly pedestrian gun, and most new ordnance-grade 1911 pistols would beat that handily with issue ball ammo...as would the P-210. But, to what end? If the engagement distances for a pistol are likely measured in single-digit feet instead of yards...how much accuracy is necessary for the gun to do its job?
In other words...The weapon must be able to perform a number of tasks well enough to rely on. A general purpose rifle isn't as accurate as a target or sniper rifle...but it's infinitely more useful, because it does many things acceptably well rather than just one thing exceptionally well. A finely-tuned Ferrarri is a wonder to behold and drive...but a pickup truck is a much more realistic choice unless all one plans to do is drive fast. The pickup is a utilitarian...or general purpose vehicle. The Ferrarri goes fast and can generate lateral G-forces that loosen your fillings...but it fails miserably when a load of firewood is across town from your woodstove.
I have pointed out the shortcomings of the M1911 design in this regard,
Other factors being equal, more accurate guns are better than less accurate ones.
My offer stands as issued. I propose to fire 5,000 rounds out of a machine rest at 50 yards, at an NRA bullseye target, for a combination of accuracy and reliability, with mutually agreed upon score penalties for failures to fire or cycle, and harsher penalties for field-replaceable part breakage. The point is to test our equipment, not our skill. I am not interested in measuring functional reliability as determined by individual ability.And I've invited you to show that the 210 is a match for the 1911 in other regards...which you've declined about 3 times now...which amounts to ignoring the challenge. I'll put one of about a dozen of mine against your Sig in an machine rest accuracy test...if you'll put your Sig against one of them for functional reliability under...some pretty adverse conditions. Any day.I have pointed out the shortcomings of the M1911 design in this regard,
FWIW...I've done this before with Glocks and modern Sigs, etc. Many of the owners who followed my lead were rewarded with non-functional pistols in short order. Most of them refused to follow. I've got a feeling that you would, too. In fact...I'd lay odds on it.
If I had a 210, I would.
An inch at 50 yards is a performance metric. What matters to me is being twice as likely to hit my target with a milspec SIG P210, as with my 1939 National Match Government Model Colt.How so...unless target shooting is the only game you're playing? I don't know about you, but I can barely see an inch at 50 yards these days...much less hold to it. How much accuracy is necessary in a defensive sidearm? All mine are more accurate than I can prove without sandbags...and I'm a pretty fair shot.Other factors being equal, more accurate guns are better than less accurate ones.
Or, as Jeff Cooper so eloquently put it:
"Absolute accuracy in a service pistol is rather like top speed in a pickup truck. Interesting, but irrelevant."
The point is to test our equipment, not our skill. I am not interested in measuring functional reliability as determined by individual ability.
You better watch out, Tuner, once you take that engine off the dyno and put in the car, you're getting into fairytale territory.But...Testing functional reliability from a machine in a controlled environment is rather like using a dynamometer to determine whether or not a race car will make it for 500 laps without blowing a head gasket.
Quote:
So I ask, do you shoot better 1 handed or 2?
About the same with a handgun. Better with 2 hands when shooting a rifle or a shotgun.
Of course I am trying to stack the deck. Modern tactical doctrine does not recommend relying on a handgun at a long range. As Colonel Townsend Whelen put it, only accurate rifles are interesting. Only a dedicated bullseye shooter would make a similar claim about handguns. I enjoy my prewar Colts and Smith & Wesson Magnums, even though my DWM LP08 can shoot rings around them. The great advantage of a P210 is in combining the accuracy of a Luger with robust reliability of a well set-up Colt Government Model.And I don't care to pit my skill on 50 yard targets against yours either. With my eyes, I'd probably lose that one before I started...so the machine rest accuracy test is on.The point is to test our equipment, not our skill. I am not interested in measuring functional reliability as determined by individual ability.
But...Testing functional reliability from a machine in a controlled environment is rather like using a dynamometer to determine whether or not a race car will make it for 500 laps without blowing a head gasket.
And..it doesn't introduce the "oops" factor of a real-world torture test.
I maintain that you're trying to stack the deck. I don't have a problem with that as long as I get to stack it a little, too. You're either willing to take it to the wall, or you're not. I'm ready to get bloody with ya, Michael. Let's really wring it out and see what it'll stand. Surely a die-hard fan like yourself has a sufficient number of the guns to be willin' to offer one up as a sacrificial lamb, and defend the honor of the 210s of the world.
Come see, come say.
I think that the only flaw in the 1911 design is the grip saftey. It serves no real purpose.
If your lifestyle involves sand pits or mud baths, the P210 is not for you. Most people I know stay out of such places.
I am not sure that Deming has ever given a definition of quality, in so many words. But he did say that variation is the enemy of qualityfault.
and on that account, the quality of an M1911 is inferior to that of a P210. For milspec P210 pistols were designed and manufactured for drop-in part fit. Whereas as a matter of design, the same level of accuracy of an M1911 depends on variation in the dimensions of the barrel bushing and link, individually hand-fitted to each handgun. I take this as evidence of design fault.
__________________other factors being equal, more accurate guns are better than less accurate ones. Other factors being equal, more uniform parts fit in guns is better than less uniform parts fit. I have pointed out the shortcomings of the M1911 design in this regard, relative to the P210. Rebutting this analysis with claims that the M1911 is "more than accurate enough to save ol' skinny at 50 feet" amounts to a change of subject.
Whereas as a matter of design, the same level of accuracy of an M1911 depends on variation in the dimensions of the barrel bushing and link,
That is why I keep a rifle in the trunk of my car. The only use for a pistol is to fight my way back to the rifle I should not have laid down in the first place.Most of the people that I know that have had to shoot their way out with a pistol or a rifle didn't have the luxury of dictating the conditions they were in.If your lifestyle involves sand pits or mud baths, the P210 is not for you. Most people I know stay out of such places.
That's the funny thing about real-world killing fields, Michael. It almost never goes down the way that we imagine it will.
I am relying on Kuhnhausen describing the use of NM links in conjunction with fitting lugs to the slide on NM barrels. Replacing the link with a camming slot streamlines this process. But as a practical matter, milspec barrels wil slip into a P49 without needing any lug fitting whatsoever. Look here to compare its armorer's manual to that of an M1911. As far as I can tell, this level of interchangeability cannot be realized in an M1911 without compromising its accuracy well below the P210 standard of 8 shots going into 5cm at 50 meters.One final nit-pick point, if I may...Whereas as a matter of design, the same level of accuracy of an M1911 depends on variation in the dimensions of the barrel bushing and link,
The link in a gun built to spec has nothing to do with mechanical accuracy.
Its only function is to disengage the barrel from the slide, and to time that function. Long-linking a barrel to increase vertical lug engagement is counterproductive as far as accuracy goes, and can cause serious damage to the gun if taken a little too far.
If you're going to offer technical critique on a design from an engineering standpoint...I'd suggest that a little study to understand how it functions would go a long way toward validating your arguments.
There exist finer standards of quality. In this regard, I am more inclined to follow Plato and Aristotle than Deming and Taguchi.Hence, a Big Mac is quality? Actually it is by the standard, just not my choice for well planned meal.I am not sure that Deming has ever given a definition of quality, in so many words. But he did say that variation is the enemy of quality,
Thank you for conceding that the M1911 falls short on the standard of quality that you have cited.The design is what has led the 1911 to so many different applications, and quite successfully, I might add. Hey, I bet you knew that, didn't you? And again, why has this successful 210 not been so popular? It must be that we amoung the masses are not capable of appreciating the finer fruit of the gods.and on that account, the quality of an M1911 is inferior to that of a P210. For milspec P210 pistols were designed and manufactured for drop-in part fit. Whereas as a matter of design, the same level of accuracy of an M1911 depends on variation in the dimensions of the barrel bushing and link, individually hand-fitted to each handgun. I take this as evidence of design fault.
That is why I keep a rifle in the trunk of my car.
I am relying on Kuhnhausen describing the use of NM links in conjunction with fitting lugs to the slide on NM barrels.