Confederate
Member
The Colt 1911 was one of the best designs of its day, but its disheartening that the design in our day has lagged so far behind. To spend close to a grand on a gun and have it not meet the reliability standards of the day is a shame.
The S&W 59s are a good example of what I mean by this. The first 59s were horrible and jammed so often that one gun magazine said that a fifty-dollar Raven .25 was actually a better gun, because it worked! But over time there were modifications and the gun eventually was made to work. It still went bang if one dropped with the hammer down on a live round, but otherwise it was fairly reliable.
The second generation was astounding, but was expensive to produce and looked and handled like the 59, which some (not me) felt was a little blocky. But it fired every time the trigger was pulled and you could dribble it like basketball all day long and it it was perfectly safe. Then the third generation appeared and it was was better ergonomically with better sights. The grips had a tendency to crack if dropped, but that was quickly fixed. The 659/5906 were, I think, some of the most underrated autos on the market (as well as the 645/4506). They don't jam when limp-wristed, and they are easier to reload, recock and fire than the Glock if one is injured.
In the initial military trials the Beretta malfunctioned on an average of 1 in about 2,000 rounds. The S&W malfunctioned on an average of 1 in every 942 rounds. These were early guns, but both performed admirably. The Colt 1911s, on the other hand, were used as controls and came in almost dead last.
The 80s heralded in a whole new generation of ultra-reliable autos. And while the Berettas worked well because the ramp was straight across and there was no ejection port, the inside of the feeding and extraction area of the S&Ws was pretty similar to what one might see in a 1911.
So the only thing I can figure out about the 1911 is that the initial design was so close to being "good" that a discernible problem was not identified. But there is a problem. The 1911 design isn't in the same ball park as the aforementioned S&Ws, nor is it as good as Sig designs or Beretta or Glocks or many other newer designs. In fact, many 1911s come out of the box needing work to meet modern accuracy and reliability standards! I can't tell you how many times I've seen 1911s (some expensive Kimbers) jamming at ranges. (One kept throwing hot brass over the seperators and hitting me in me head.) The guy shooting this one would slow fire it for 3 or 4 shots and then rapid fire the last 4-5 shots--and that's when the jams would happen. In fact, after .22LRs, I'd have to say .45 autos tend to be the most frequent offenders with jams.
So what's the deal? Why can't some of these companies find a way of improving the design? If S&W could do it, why can't some of these others? Does it have anything to do with patents?
The S&W 59s are a good example of what I mean by this. The first 59s were horrible and jammed so often that one gun magazine said that a fifty-dollar Raven .25 was actually a better gun, because it worked! But over time there were modifications and the gun eventually was made to work. It still went bang if one dropped with the hammer down on a live round, but otherwise it was fairly reliable.
The second generation was astounding, but was expensive to produce and looked and handled like the 59, which some (not me) felt was a little blocky. But it fired every time the trigger was pulled and you could dribble it like basketball all day long and it it was perfectly safe. Then the third generation appeared and it was was better ergonomically with better sights. The grips had a tendency to crack if dropped, but that was quickly fixed. The 659/5906 were, I think, some of the most underrated autos on the market (as well as the 645/4506). They don't jam when limp-wristed, and they are easier to reload, recock and fire than the Glock if one is injured.
In the initial military trials the Beretta malfunctioned on an average of 1 in about 2,000 rounds. The S&W malfunctioned on an average of 1 in every 942 rounds. These were early guns, but both performed admirably. The Colt 1911s, on the other hand, were used as controls and came in almost dead last.
The 80s heralded in a whole new generation of ultra-reliable autos. And while the Berettas worked well because the ramp was straight across and there was no ejection port, the inside of the feeding and extraction area of the S&Ws was pretty similar to what one might see in a 1911.
So the only thing I can figure out about the 1911 is that the initial design was so close to being "good" that a discernible problem was not identified. But there is a problem. The 1911 design isn't in the same ball park as the aforementioned S&Ws, nor is it as good as Sig designs or Beretta or Glocks or many other newer designs. In fact, many 1911s come out of the box needing work to meet modern accuracy and reliability standards! I can't tell you how many times I've seen 1911s (some expensive Kimbers) jamming at ranges. (One kept throwing hot brass over the seperators and hitting me in me head.) The guy shooting this one would slow fire it for 3 or 4 shots and then rapid fire the last 4-5 shots--and that's when the jams would happen. In fact, after .22LRs, I'd have to say .45 autos tend to be the most frequent offenders with jams.
So what's the deal? Why can't some of these companies find a way of improving the design? If S&W could do it, why can't some of these others? Does it have anything to do with patents?
