Old Fluff is correct in that the original 1911s were NOT loose. I have a 1911 in about 90% condition that is tighter than brand new Springfields and Colts I have seen at gun shows. He attributes looser 1911s to relaxed tolerances to make parts more interchangible, which may be right, but also because they still functioned well and had 'combat accuracy' of about 4" or less groups at 25 yards (or so I have read). The relaxed tolerances made the gun cheaper to produce.
I have participated in 3 Glock v. 1911 1000 round matches, 2 in Oklahoma and 1 in Texas. The one in Texas was the second or 3rd held by TDSA south of Dallas. The Glockers gave the 1911 folks a lot of crap about the first 1911 failing the year before at 46 rounds. At the match I attended and the 2nd one in Oklahoma, the first guns out of the matches were Glocks that fired only one round and did not manage to cycle the second round. In fact, Glocks were the first guns to fail in all three matches of which two were won by 1911s.
Of course the stats don't mean much if not taken in context. Basically, if the gun malfunctioned at all, you were out of the official competition. You were not allowed to clean the gun, lube, or anything else. So if you pulled the trigger and the gun didn't fire, you were out. That could be due to bad ammo, lack of lube, or failure to insert a magazine.
Generally speaking, there were more Glocks that finished the matches or were close to finishing the matches than 1911s. So the impression is that Glocks tended to do better over all, but were not the winners of 2 of the 3 matches. If you ran a Glock, there was a good chance you would be out early or fairly late if you did not win the match.
Of interest also is the fact that non 9mm Glocks tended to NOT do nearly as well as 9mm Glocks. As it turns out, 1 1911, and 1 Glock that won these matches were 9mm guns. The one other winning 1911 was a .45 acp.
Sort of when started by TDSA, as I recall, the issue was settling the great Glock v. 1911 debate as to which guns were better. The problem there and in the later matches is one of sample control. There has been no real consideration as to whether there is a benefit or shortcoming of using particular calibers. There was no control for gun maintenance, ammo brand or load, how used the gun was, or the shooter's manipulation of the gun (I DQ'd in the first match due to weak hand one handed shooting limp-wristed stovepipe, for example, and another guy topping off mags between sets forgot to re-insert a mag before his next stage and his gun ran dry and the hammer dropped on an empty chamber as he had failed to put a mag into the gun).
Plus, such tests with so little controls fail to really consider whether the guns will run 1000 rounds or not when a gun has a part break during that particular 1000 rounds. I think there were guns in each match that DQ'd for breakage. In two of the matches, the first guns to DQ for breakage were Glocks, but such a statistic is actually meaningless sense the parts undoubtedly broke as a result of longer term wear and tear and not just because the shooter was in a 1000 round match.
Not counted in the TDSA match but in the two later ones in OK, mag failures seemed to be more common with Glocks than with 1911s in regard to catastrophic failures. In the 3 matches I have seen 3 Glock mags take a(n ammo) dump while being fired, the baseplate, spring and cartridges landing at the shooters' feet like pellets from a rabbit held and squeezed too hard. The one 1911 mag failure, as I recall, was a spring/follower that bound up in the mag housing and has to be disassembled to get it unbound.
In other words, it is hard to find a good way to compare and contrast just two type of guns because of all the variable factors that come into play that cannot be controlled for in such a manner to make such data used for a valid comparison, so comparing all the types of guns that show up to gun schools is that much more of a problem for getting useful information unless you are asking for what guns work best or work worst regardless of comparing the various factors involved.
Is there a gun that would work fine with a new shooter or experience, with good ammo or bad, etc.? If I was a betting man, I would put my money on the original full-sized Glock in 9mm. What was it, the Glock 17? The caliber is small enough and the size and weight of the gun large enough that the caliber isn't intimidating to new shooters and the gun is not as likely to suffer at the hands of limp wristing. The 9mm ball ammo seems to be an excellent feeding ammo (as compared to the less pointy .45 acp ball ammo). The limited slide to frame rail contact seems to run better without lube than you get with full contact slide/frame contact on the rails. Less powder compared to larger calibers seems to keep the gun from heating up as fast as well (note that this is just a perception and not based on me testing heat buildup and that the perception may be completely wrong).
