Why A 1911?

[WinThePennant]

If you want to shoot a .45, then why a 1911? Seems like they are all the time having troubles out-of-the-box. The riddle of making a gun that will shoot great out-of-the-box has been effectively SOLVED by other designs.

Why not a Glock (21, 30, or 36)? Why not a Sig P220? Why not a S&W M&P45?

I had a 1911 - ONCE. Right out of the box it was failing to eject. The response from, well, everybody, was, "Don't worry about it, that's normal."

Were I to get a .45, I think this would probably be my top choice:

 

[NWcityguy2]

I like the trigger better and it has its own USPSA division.

 

[RNB65]

Why not a Glock (21, 30, or 36)? Why not a Sig P220? Why not a S&W M&P45?

They weren't designed by John Browning.

 

[LeonCarr]

The world only knows why people spend their hard earned money on 1911s that have to be worked on by a gunsmith out of the box to run right.

Been there, done that, never again.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I had a 1911 - ONCE. Right out of the box it was failing to eject.

You're judging a design by one example, made by one factory.

It's like if the 350 Chevy was 100 years old, the patents had all run out, and there were 40 different companies making "350 Chevy" engines. The problem is that they're made in 3 different countries, to different design specifications, by personnel with different levels of training, to different price points, and with different end-goals in mind. Some might make 650 horsepower. Some might make only 235, but are made to run forever. Some will never start without serious work. None of that really comments on the viability of the design, though.

I'd say that if you buy a pistol it should shoot reliably out of the box. Even a 1911. If it doesn't then it might be a lemon (even Lexus and BMW put out a bad car once in a while), but if it's more common than that then you're looking at a manufacturer who either puts out a poor product, or has such poor quality control that they're a bad risk.

You can buy a good 1911 for $400 from a low-tier manufacturer with at least some level of consistency (I shot a new RIA through Gunsite's 250 course, without cleaning it, and without a malfunction that wasn't forced). You can spend a tiny bit more and get a quality piece from STI, Colt, S&W, Sig, Taurus, Ruger, or Springfield. Now, if you'll examine them you'll start to note that they are all straying from the original design to one degree or another, with various effects.

I should also point out that in the trials that selected the 1911, IIRC the prototype went through 6,000 rounds without a malfunction.

---

Now, why a 1911? Because it feels good in hand, points well, has a very good trigger, conceals well, and is the kind of design that appeals to me more than a Glock. I've owned 5 Glocks, 3 Sigs, and a few 1911's. The 1911's are the only pistols remaining in my gun case (revolvers are a different discussion, and my father-in-law claims I have no taste anyway because I like S&W models, when a true connoisseur would accept nothing less than a Colt...)

 

[Greg528iT]

then why a 1911?

I've had personal experience with 3, 1911s.. all 3 ran straight out of the box.
My buddy just bought a 1911.. had it 2 days, ran 100 rounds thru it,
All 4 are Springfields.

Cause they work.

 

[HDCamel]

The perfect blend of history, looks, shootability, versatility, and customization.

As to why people carry them, there may be better guns out there, but a 1911 is "good enough" and good enough is all you need to save your skin.

 

[KAS1981]

My lowly Taurus 1911 runs fine "out of the box".

I think the real question is why are you trolling?

 

[bdb benzino]

I've had 5 1911's, a officers Colt, a government Springfield loaded, and 3 Armscor made 1911's (3.5", 4", 5"). All five have ran 100% even the affordable Armscor made ones! I do not see where anyone gets off saying that 1911's are unreliable.

 

[ugaarguy]

Why not a Glock (21, 30, or 36)?

They don't point naturally in my hands, and my short, fat fingers can barely get around the 21 & 30 - even the SF versions.

Why not a Sig P220?

I don't like DA/SA autos. The triggers on the 220 SAO models I've handled were the worst SA triggers I've ever felt. I've not gone out of my way to look for a 220 DAK.

Why not a S&W M&P45?

Long trigger reset, with a phantom or false reset part way to the actual reset. If 1911s were suddenly banned & confiscated an M&P45 with an Apex kit installed would be my choice.

All that aside, the 1911 just fits my hand better than any other pistol made. The trigger is superb. Most importantly, I shoot them better than any other pistol I've fired. That's why I own and shoot 1911s.

If Ruger scaled up the SR series to handle .45 ACP I might try one of those. The new trigger in all SR pistols, which premiered in the SR9c, is very good. It's a tad heavy, but it breaks clean, and resets short & crisp. It's still not a 1911 trigger though. Even so, if Ruger made an SR45 that took 1911 magazines I'd get on the waiting list as soon as it was announced.

 

[Powderman]

I have owned my 1911 pistol since 1993.

The stoppages I have experienced have been found to be: a. Weak magazine springs; b. A recoil spring that was too strong (my fault); c. Faulty handloads (again my fault).

It has NEVER failed to fire factory ammunition.

The pistol now has about 15K rounds through it. It will hold an honest 4" at 50 yards.

It is my primary duty gun and sidearm; I trust it implicitly. It is a Colt Enhanced.

Yep--it cost money. But--buy quality ONCE, or buy cheap over and over again.

 

[Eric F]

Why A 1911?

I had 3000 rounds of 38 super factory ammo

Ever look for a 38 super gun? plenty of 1911 models out there not so many others.

 

[1911Tuner]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, or so 'tis said. Since the intertubez have began to outrun word of mouth by a large margin, we hear more reports. Because Joe Average is wont to make more of a malfunctioning pistol than one that just works straight out of the box...also by a signigicant margin...it leads many to believe that 1911s are somehow unreliable as designed. The delinquents get all the attention, and the good boys just quietly go about their task without drawing attention.

The problem is in the execution...not in the design. When you've got two dozen clone makers scrambling to get their piece of the pie and pumping out pistols as fast as they can...and many of them seem to be making up specs as they go...you're bound to have some trouble.

As a wise, old gentleman down at Tractor Supply once noted when talking about grass seed.

"2% weeds sounds pretty good...until you stop to think that when you've got a gazillion seeds in a 60-pound bag...2% is a helluva lotta weeds."

I've bought and sold a boy howdy buncha 1911s over the years. I've mostly stuck with Colt and a few older Springfields. More recently, I've grabbed up a few Norincos. Aside from the USGI pistols, which work like old Singer sewing machines...no pun intended...I've had only two lemons, and both of those were Thompson Auto Ordnance pistols that I bought very cheap, fully expecting that they'd require some work in order to do range duty. All the others have been just fine. What few minor issues cropped up were addressed quickly and simply.

 

[Geckgo]

Why?? Because they run good, the trigger is heaven, and they sparkle in the sunlight!

 

[Ringolevio]

A dinosaur gun for a dinosaur

Why a 1911? Because it has a certain unique essence; call it mystique, call it cachet; it is a timeless design, both aesthetically and functionally. Plus, if one fancies oneself a pistolero, one must master the 1911.

All my 1911s are Colts. They are as reliable as, say, my Jeep Cherokee; also a timeless design; not a 100 yr. old design like the 1911 but, at 12 yrs. old and 157k miles, and properly maintained, it's the one of my vehicles that will do whatever I ask of it, in any conditions, despite its "old" technology. Sure, there are other 4wd vehicles, but how many have that kind of tradition, and how many factor approach and departure angles into their designs?

Maybe you can tell I like old stuff. Hey, I'm an old guy. I've got a lot of old stuff that I take care of and make it last. I've got an "Alaskan Tuxedo" from Filson that they don't even make anymore; I've had it for almost 30 yrs. and it's still good as new. I've got boots from Russell's that I've had for 20 yrs. I've even got an old cellphone (No, not one of those the size of a brick, but still a "dinosaur" -- like me! -- to kids today).

Ever since I was a kid, playing with waterguns shaped like a 1911 and hearing my dad and my uncles speak with reverence of the ".45 Automatic" they carried and used in WW2, I knew that was the handgun to own and use. But it took me until I was in my late 40s to actually own one and become proficient, not just at hitting the target but at stripping it and re-assembling it (Yes, I can do it blindfolded).

The 1911 is just the kind of gun for the kind of person I am. My next favorite after the 1911 is the BHP, and I guess that, like me, is another dinosaur. But, also like me, they're also classics.

 

[ATLDave]

I'll try to give only purely-rational reasons, with nostalgia or "classic" status left aside:

1. The straight-back trigger is just different than the pivoting trigger used on almost all other pistols, and some people just like it better. Some even contend that it is inherently superior, and, for them, that is probably true.

2. It is thinner than almost any of the modern designs, almost all of which are chunky. Chunkiness can be a factor in concealability, but also in ergonomics for some people.

3. The safety is in a good place and orientation for those who like an external safety. Lots of other handguns with safeties have them in a location (on the slide, for instance) or an orientation (up for fire, down for safe) that makes manipulation of them require a separate action from taking a grip. On a 1911, if you ride the safety with a high grip, the thumb safety clicks off virtually automatically. Compare that with a Beretta with a slide-mounted safety.

4. The availability/variety of custom parts dwarfs that of any other handgun. Only the AR-15 comes to mind as a firearm design with equal customizability in terms of aftermarket stuff.

5. The design is fundamentally robust. I'm not going to touch the reliability question. I'm talking about the ability of the gun to withstand many tens of thousands of relatively powerful cartridges being put through it. How many slides or frames have cracked on 1911's? It's certainly possible to kaboom a 1911, but, given the huge numbers of them out there, it seems pretty rare.

6. Most of the top-level competitive shooters in non-production divisions seem to shoot 1911 variants. Surely that is probative of something.

BTW, I do not own, and have never owned, a 1911. I figure I will when I can/want to put a couple thousand bucks into it from the outset to minimize the chances of the problems that certainly can arise.

 

[brnmuenchow]

For me I think it was like my father once told me, "It is a piece of history, it may not be the best and it certaintly is not the worst, but a piece of history in itself". I actually prefer the Sig Sauer, an H&K models, but there will alway's be some type of Colt 1911 design in my possesion.

 

[tuj]

Don't buy a Kimber. My STI Spartan, which is amongst the low-end 1911's, has had zero failures in about 800 rounds now since new.

As for why 1911? Well show me another 45 that will shoot the x-ring out at 50 yards. My Les Baer can do it, can your Sig? The only other 1911 I know of that's accurate enough for bullseye is the Pardini GT45.

 

[Fiv3r]

Different stroke for different folks. The 1911 is a functional piece of American art. It's the perfect combination of style, performance, and utility that so many gun fans gravitate toward.

Some guys like to tinker and tune. Some don't. However, I don't think that anyone who trusts their life daily to the functionality of a 1911 is foolish. Properly maintained, they are pretty well dead nuts reliable.

This is coming from a Glock 21 guy. I like my boring, unsexy, chunky Glock. I own one because it shoots well, it's reliable, and quite frankly I can't afford a "good" 1911 that both gives me the same level of performance AND is set up for my stubborn southpaw.

But you'll never catch me denying the genius of Browning's designs.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

My Paraordinance works just fine, both with ball, lead round nose, and lead semi-wadcutters. So, it's sorta a 1911A1 but with a fatter grip, and a barrel that uses a cam insted of a linkage.

My previous officer's model worked fine. My 1911A1 in .38 super was wonderful, but I did spend money to trickitout for IPSC back in the 1980's. My Thompson Auto Ordinance 1911A1 was used, and worked OK, and with an added $150 of "upgrade" to match barrel, trigger job, extractor and ejector, it was "amazing" considering what I started with at the beginning.

I consider "nostalgia" applies when using my Ruger Vaqueros, not the 1911A1. More modern designs seem to me to be improvements on the manufacturing process (simpler, cheaper), and the firing mechanisms (in some cases simpler), plus the use of polymers, and polymers could probably be applied to make a polymer frame 1911A1. (Though the market might just balk at such sacrilege. )

Don't most modern semi-auto pistols use a cam to unlock the barrel for extraction and ejection of the round, and thus are offspring to John Browning's design? Perhaps I am too simplistic?

LD

 

[Bozwell]

They are as reliable as, say, my Jeep Cherokee

Ouch. I had heard they had reliability problems, but I didn't realize they were that bad!

In all seriousness, there are quite a few reasons to get a 1911 that others have highlighted already. There's of course the history behind it but, as old as the design is, the 1911 still does some things better than almost any other handgun out there (the fantastic trigger pull comes to mind). It's also a very thin design and is comfortable for a lot of people to shoot.

All that said, it doesn't mean it's for you and you may prefer a glock or the Sig you posted. Firearms are just like anything else - completely subjective and entirely based on individual tastes and preferences. Even if it's not for you though, I think it's obvious that JMB did something right with the 1911 design given its popularity 100 years later.

 

[mavracer]

Quote:
Why not a Glock (21, 30, or 36)? Why not a Sig P220? Why not a S&W M&P45?
They weren't designed by John Browning.

If you actually look closely the majority of their design with reguard to the feeding is a copy of JMBs design.
Recipricating slide, short recoil tilting barrel, feeds from magazine in grip, barrel cammed back into battery where lugs on barrel mate with slide.
Yep they work because they are good exicutions of JMB designs just like the millions of 1911s that run right out of the box.

 

[mgmorden]

I had a 1911 - ONCE. Right out of the box it was failing to eject. The response from, well, everybody, was, "Don't worry about it, that's normal."

"1911" is a design type. TONS of people make them. Some do a better job than others. Deriding the platform because you had a bad one is about like saying that people shouldn't buy trucks because you once bought a truck and had problems.

 

[Skribs]

I will never buy a 1911 for a few reasons, but none relate to the reliability of the design. I want all of my semi-auto handguns to be of the DAO or SF variant with no manual safety. The 1911 doesn't meet either qualification for me.

Couple that with the fact that there aren't many options for high-capacity 1911s, and I feel better with a double-stack anyway. I'd prefer an XDM with 13 rounds to a 1911 with 7 or 8.

 

[1911Tuner]

mavracer nailed it. The Glock and the Sig and the Smiths and the Rugers have John Browning's fingerprints all over'em.

Let's count the ways.

Tilt barrel/locked breech/short recoil operated...Check.

Recoil/Locking lug(s) on top of barrel....Check.

Recoil spring under barrel...Check.

Front slide dismount...Check.

Magazine release on side of frame...Check.

Double column/single feed position...(Grande Rendement) Check.

Barrel cam-up into engagement with the slide...Check. (No. It's not the link that does it.)

Linkless barrel disengagement. Okay. We'll give that one to Dieudonne Saive circa 1935-High Power.

Gaston used one massive locking lug instead of three small radial lugs...a step that made production simpler and easier than having to equalize three separate lugs...but the end result is the same. It does work, but the slide looks like a brick.

The differences are in the frame...essentially no more than a gun mount...and the fire controls. Aside from that, it's Browning's. It may look like a revolutionary new design...but at its heart...it's a 1911.