Which had more revolutionary impact: Glock or Colt 1911?

[MachIVshooter]

They only problem is that our military junked it for a 9 mm Italian designed side arm many years ago.

Do you seriously believe that our military selects equipment based solely on merit?

There are several combat pistols that are light years ahead of it's very primitive design.

Yeah, all those fancy HK's, Sig's, GLocks, XD's that use a totally diffe.......wait a sec, they use the same short recoil system, button mag release, recoil spring under the barrel, homogenous slide enclosing the barrel......

Come to think of it, it's almost like they were kinda based on the Browning design, isn't it?

Light years? Please. More like a frog leap, and that's stretching it.

JMB himself came to the same conclusion and that is why the 9mm Browning High Power was created.

No, he created the HP for the French military, who specifically comissioned him to build a gun to their specifications, and he had already sold the 1911 patent to Colt. That is why the HP is different; It has nothing to do with Browning's personal opinion of his creation and everything to do with not infringing the patent that he sold to Colt.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Yeah, all those fancy HK's, Sig's, GLocks, XD's that use a totally diffe.......wait a sec, they use the same short recoil system, button mag release, recoil spring under the barrel, homogenous slide enclosing the barrel......

Less parts, more durable, drop in parts, higher capacity magazines, lighter weight. 1911s are nice but for duty/combat use, there are pistols that are much better then the 1911. You don't need a pistol with match accuracy or a target trigger as a Police officer and the accuracy or trigger wouldn't be a factor in military use because it would be drawn because your rifle ran empty or malfunctioned. a 1911 for duty or combat use seems like nostalgia to me.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Less parts

Generally correct.

more durable

Speculative. We'll know more in a century or so.

drop in parts

Some are, some aren't-in the 1911 and other guns. A loose mil-spec 1911 is going to have more drop-in parts than a tight custom, and the same is true of any other design.

higher capacity magazines.

Yeah, you're right. There are no hi cap 1911s...........except for those from Para, Kimber, STI, SV, Wilson Combat, Springfield Armory, Detonics, RIA, Llama...............

 

[Armed012002]

There's a lot of emotion in this thread and for good reason.

The 1911 is a timeless design thanks to its long storied service. It's faithfully served countless servicemen, peace officers, and citizens for over 100 years. The 1911 is legendary because of the legendary heros that have carried it.

However, I disagree with the opinion that the 1911 is revolutionary. Most certainly it's legendary, but I don't see how this design fits the definition of revolutionary. For example, a double action revolver serves the same purpose. In fact, for many decades, many police agencies in America preferred double action revolvers over the 1911 and semiautomatic pistols in general.

As I said before, there have been very few truly revolutionary changes in firearms.

In my opinion, the change to self contained metallic cartridges is an example of a revolutionary change. Without this development, the 1911 and Glock would not exist. The 1911 and Glock are both evolutionary changes in firearms that fire those cartridges.

We won't have another revolutionary change until someone comes up with something different than a self contained metallic cartridge. Perhaps caseless ammo will be the next revolution?

 

[Armed012002]

I would not use any decision the government or Department of Defense has made as an argument for or against a firearm.

There's just too many variables in those decisions. Many of those are political in nature.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Not for nothing but, if the 1911 was so good just why did our military junk it and go to the 9 mm Beretta? No military of any country has ever junked the Glock superior design that has proven itself to be virtually indestructible and rock solid reliable.

For the year 1911 JMB design was unique and maybe even revolutionary for it's time. That said, in the year 2012 the Glock auto loading pistol is a quantum leap ahead of the 1911 antique in design. Not to get involved in a heated debate full of angst and hyped rhetoric, just what can any 1911 do that my Glock 36 can not do? They both shoot 230 grain ball ammo and my Glock shoots hollow points flawlessly and does not need to be soaked in oil or broken in for 600 rounds like my Kimber. The Glock carries like a dream, light weight and no sharp edges to get caught when it is drawn from concealment. To me that is a big improvement over my Kimber. I would not drive a Model T Ford as a Nascar machine either......just saying!

NATO, NATO, NATO. That's why.

As for what a 1911 can do that a Glock can't? Nothing, but that's off topic anyway. I firmly believe, like a few others here that the 1911 was revolutionary, the Glock not so much.

Please do not use a Kimber for comparison, that's just plain not right.

If Eisenhower ceased orders for 1911s, why were they still being used up to the mid 80s, when they were replaced by a NATO compliant sidearm that wasn't a Glock?

 

[45_auto]

just what can any 1911 do that my Glock 36 can not do?

Hide'm both in your oven, turn it on to "broil" for about 15 minutes, then see which one will still shoot!

 

[fatcat4620]

All right so we can put thus one to bed. The 1911 was more revolutionary but the glock is a better gun.

 

[Armed012002]

Hide'm both in your oven, turn it on to "broil" for about 15 minutes, then see which one will still shoot!

Statements like this are absurd. Frequently used on both sides of the "Glock vs 1911" debate to "prove" one is better than the other.

It would be like me suggesting someone drop their 1911 and Glock in salt water for 30 days then see which one will still shoot. The Glock will, most 1911s probably will not.

Neither is a real world example of durability and doesn't add much, if anything, to the discussion.

 

[Armed012002]

All right so we can put thus one to bed. The 1911 was more revolutionary but the glock is a better gun.

Or perhaps neither is revolutionary and both are good guns

 

[wickedsprint]

Hide'm both in your oven, turn it on to "broil" for about 15 minutes, then see which one will still shoot!

While funny, this should not be the sole discriminator.

 

[huntsman]

A 1911 is representative of what America used to be

A Glock is representative of what America is now

$600. for a pile of plastic, sure they work but to make the 1911 like it was made makes it unaffordable to most shooters so the Glock wins because at least it keeps guns in the hands of shooters.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Seems like Colt and our military got the worst end of that deal until Eisenhower got smart and stopped all orders for 1911 platform pistols and adopted the proven 9 mm format that had proven itself extremely effective in the European combat theaters for years.

Adopted? lol. Those trials were abandoned.

The 9mm didn't officially enter service with the US armed forces until 1990, and it's been griped about ever since. Forces that actually use their handguns often choose the .45 ACP: MEUSOC pistol (a 1911) and HK Mk23

But since this thread has absolutely nothing to do with cartridges, let's shy away from that right now.

to make the 1911 like it was made makes it unaffordable to most shooters so the Glock wins because at least it keeps guns in the hands of shooters.

Ummmm............to make it as it was made gives you anything from the $400 RIA GI model to the $900 Colt Government model series 70, and a bunch in between. I wouldn't call the $400-$900 market out of reach for the average American handgunner; Just about everything falls into that range.

 

[RickMD]

A Chevy Volt is revolutionary compared to a '66 Jaguar XKE but which one would you like to have in your garage?

 

[huntsman]

$400 RIA GI model to the $900 Colt Government model series 70, and a bunch in between. I wouldn't call the $400-$900 market out of reach for the average American handgunner; Just about everything falls into that range.

All US made? all made the same way as the production Colt or are you sighting MIM and cast frame guns?

http://www.gunrunnerauctions.com/listings/details/index.cfm?itemnum=1017783756

one from the good old days

 

[JohnBT]

"But just because he laid His Hands upon the 1911 doesn't mean the 1911 itself was revolutionary."

And just because he laid his hands on it doesn't mean it wasn't revolutiontary. I see what you tried to do there with your fast talk.

John

P.S. - I had a friend in college in the early '70s with an XKE rag top. I'll only take the car if it comes with a mechanic. Then his roomate got a new '72 454 Corvette. Oh dear me. He'd let me drive him to class 2x a week and keep the car on the road for an hour until class was over. Wheeeeeeeeee.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Speculative. We'll know more in a century or so.

Less parts generally means more durable especially in something like a Glock.

Some are, some aren't-in the 1911 and other guns. A loose mil-spec 1911 is going to have more drop-in parts than a tight custom, and the same is true of any other design.

Is there a 1911 made today that is actually mil spec with drop in parts? That's what I'm getting at. Not the original military 1911s that were issued 30 years ago.

Yeah, you're right. There are no hi cap 1911s...........except for those from Para, Kimber, STI, SV, Wilson Combat, Springfield Armory, Detonics, RIA, Llama...............

You are right but why would the military take a 1911 over something more modern?

The 9mm didn't officially enter service with the US armed forces until 1990, and it's been griped about ever since. Forces that actually use their handguns often choose the .45 ACP: MEUSOC pistol (a 1911) and HK Mk23

So the Army just has the M9 for looks? The MEUSOC is issued to the MEU Marines only and they aren't that big either. The Navy SEALs pretty much all used the P226 9mm and swore by it instead of the large and largely unused MK23. SOCOM replaced the MK23 with the HK45CT if you didn't know.

Also, 5.56 NATO has been griped about since it's adoption too despite being proven that it's effective.

 

[Cosmoline]

A Chevy Volt is revolutionary compared to a '66 Jaguar XKE but which one would you like to have in your garage?

That's a very good point. Consider a few really revolutionary firearms. The Lebel 1886. The Hall rifle. The MAS 40. Collector value aside, these all have their share of bugs and limitations which were resolved in subsequent variations on the ideas they introduced. Revolutionary arms are rarely the best.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I first shot the 1911A1 in 1982 while going through Marine Corps boot camp. I was impressed with the gun then and still love them today. I was on active duty wgen the military switched over to the Beretta, What a sad day.
I remember when the Glock first hit the market. I worked for a large sporting goods store and sold Glocks for $229. Boy did you have to work to sell then back in the day.
The 1911 has left it's mark on the world and is still being built today.
Glock is making it's mark. Will it still be around in 100 years, that is to be seen.
My 94 year old US 1911 built in August of 1918 is still functional.
Will a Glock built in 2012 still be functional in 2106? That is yet to be seen.
All in all both guns have had a large impact on how guns are looked at today.

 

[MachIVshooter]

All US made? all made the same way as the production Colt or are you sighting MIM and cast frame guns?

Some are cast, some forged, some US made, some not. However, I've never seen a MIM frame.

Less parts generally means more durable especially in something like a Glock.

Parts count and durability are unrelated. There are a lot of very simple guns that aren't durable, and there are very complex designs that have stood the test of time. Lower parts count just makes it cheaper to produce at the same quality level, which the Glock certainly is.

Is there a 1911 made today that is actually mil spec with drop in parts?

Several. Of course, they aren't going to be nice and tight like the semi-customs, and won't boast the same level of accuracy as a hand-fitted gun.

There seems to be this misconception that all 1911s require careful hand fitting of every part by an expert gunsmith. It simply isn't so, especially if you're not trying to build a bullseye gun.

You are right but why would the military take a 1911 over something more modern?

They wouldn't, because double action became requisite.

So the Army just has the M9 for looks?

Did I say that? There were a lot of factors that went into that decision, and it was more than just one trial.

Let's digress, though. This thread is not about the current military standards, pistol trials of the '50s and 80s, the 9mm cartridge, drop in parts, the quality of various current production 1911s or the Beretta 92FS pistol.

 

[Pete D.]

. You don't need a pistol with match accuracy....

WOW. Maybe the effect was unintended.....it is hard to believe that the accuracy of a gun and the quality of its trigger can be dismissed in such a cavalier fashion.
Actually, the accuracy of 1911s is the answer to the question "what can a 1911 do that my Glock can't?"
Don't get me wrong....I like Glocks. I own and carry one and it is accurate - despite its trigger; when I go to a match, when accuracy is paramount, I take the Gold Cup, the Glock stays home.
At the matches, shooters can use any of many guns...I have never seen a Glock on the line.
Pete

 

[meanmrmustard]

This isn't about who is best. Both arms have there pros and cons. But, rather, which was revolutionary. We've been given information from folks here supporting both sides. No one has given a concrete example of Glock reshaping anything in terms of firearms design or usage. It's done nothing that hasn't been done before. Albeit, the Glock may do things better than other pistols in it's stable, but best the 1911 in terms of revolutionary it does not. I see the Glock design as a smattering of copied designs that have come together to make a formidable arm. It's just not on any forefront design wise. To close, Glock likes to promote it's perfection, and my unbiased thought on that is when we begin to see less people having problems (recoil spring, sticky mag release, trigger pinch, sights crooked or loose) with them, they would be indeed perfect. Maybe a perfect Glock is revolutionary, they've not achieved it though. Those are easy fixes, so we may see a Gen 5 super-pistol and the Glock will rise to a glory it currently does not have. 1911s have the revolution crown so to speak.

 

[meanmrmustard]

All right so we can put thus one to bed. The 1911 was more revolutionary but the glock is a better gun.

Subjective.

 

[JRH6856]

In my opinion, the change to self contained metallic cartridges is an example of a revolutionary change. Without this development, the 1911 and Glock would not exist. The 1911 and Glock are both evolutionary changes in firearms that fire those cartridges.

We won't have another revolutionary change until someone comes up with something different than a self contained metallic cartridge. Perhaps caseless ammo will be the next revolution?

That may be the most sensible and accurate assessment to appear in this thread.

But caseless ammo would still just be an evolution in ammunition. A truly revolutionary change would eliminate cartridges in favor of pure energy. Phasers, anyone?

 

[meanmrmustard]

That may be the most sensible and accurate assessment to appear in this thread.

But caseless ammo would still just be an evolution in ammunition. A truly revolutionary change would eliminate cartridges in favor of pure energy. Phasers, anyone?

That is the most awesomemest statement. I'd love a laser gun. Although, the lack of cartridges means no jobs for ammo manufacturing, thus a massive unemployment situation. Bummer.