Why are there not more modern SAO autos?

[Sam1911]

In addition to the military and law enforcement, the odd thing to me is that much of the competition world (USPSA/IPSC) won't let you shoot SINGLE ACTION IN A "Production Class" 9mm.

As a lover of the 1911, I enjoy getting to share this little nugget from time to time:

Last year I was a safety officer at the IDPA National Matches in Allentown, PA. I saw something that really opened my eyes. Dave Olhasso won Division Champion in "Custom Defensive Pistol" (that's the division that's "dumbed down" for .45 ACP 1911s -- 8 rds. in the mags and so forth). He beat every other Master class 1911 shooter -- with his .45 ACP M&P!

I suppose we really can't say that 1911's "dominate" competition anymore.

[By the way... I really like my xDM 9mm. But I still carry the 1911.]

-Sam

 

[Ascot500]

A few years back Star made the Firestar.
An SAO with a 1911 grip angle and no link or bushing.
Judging by the prices they fetch on the used market, they are missed.

The only recent iteration that comes to mind is the EAA YUGO M88
which is really a shortened Tok.
I doubt it will gain much traction.

 

[tipoc]

The Stars were good guns. Star and Llama both made several innovative versions of sa guns building on the 1911 design. They were very successful internationally for years. Star is out of business though.

tipoc

 

[JohnBT]

"I suppose we really can't say that 1911's "dominate" competition anymore."

Sounds to me like they're still dominating. If one loss is big news, then they must still be dominating.


A buddy told me that Stars are only selling for big bucks because it's the only way to get parts.

John

 

[Sam1911]

"I suppose we really can't say that 1911's "dominate" competition anymore."

Sounds to me like they're still dominating. If one loss is big news, then they must still be dominating.

Perhaps. On the other hand, if there is(was?) one last spot where competition had been limited enough to let them be competative...and now they can't be assured of winning in that area either... maybe that is indicative of something.

I still like them, but I don't make statements like "that's the only gun for a REAL shooter" anymore. I suppose you could say my opinion has matured.

-Sam

 

[NMGonzo]

I like my glock.

Single action and all that.

No safeties.

 

[tipoc]

Perhaps. On the other hand, if there is(was?) one last spot where competition had been limited enough to let them be competative...and now they can't be assured of winning in that area either... maybe that is indicative of something.

I've been hearing this for the last 15 years. Kinda hard to draw accurate general conclusions from one round of one regional match.

By the way, there are 1911s with capacities that match their competitors.

In the 2009 Bianchi Cup IIRC the American Rifleman reported that 7 of the 10 winners in different divisions shot 1911s.

No the 1911 no longer dominates the competitive circuit as it did 20 years ago or 15 years ago. But that's a good thing. There are more and varied guns for folks to shoot. The 1911 is not for everyone. Still the 1911 remains the gun to beat in competition (yeah I know it's the shooter to beat, the gun is secondary). 1911s always are in the top tier.

tipoc

 

[Sam1911]

I've been hearing this for the last 15 years. Kinda hard to draw accurate general conclusions from one round of one regional match.

That's a pretty funny statement! If you've been hearing it for the last 15 years, then you really don't have to draw your conclusions from the results of one match, do you?

And, just for clarity ... it wasn't the results of "one regional match" but, rather, the national match.

By the way, there are 1911s with capacities that match their competitors.

Yes, of course. In IDPA, those compete in "Enhanced Service Pistol," against CZs and other SAOs in various calibers. Unfortunately, I can't seem to pull up the match results page at the moment, but I don't think a 1911 won that division, either. Whenever the page is back up, I'll double check that.

-Sam

 

[JohnBT]

"I've been hearing this for the last 15 years."

Yep, but it's still big news when the winner isn't shooting a 1911.

I can open everything I tried on the IDPA site, but where are the shooters' guns listed? They weren't on the match results sheets.

John

 

[Sam1911]

I can open everything I tried on the IDPA site, but where are the shooters' guns listed? They weren't on the match results sheets.

Yes, I can see the pages now, too. And no, I can't find that info. I see that Tom Yost won ESP Div. Champ., and I remember him coming through our bay, but I can't remember what he was shooting.

-Sam

 

[android]

Long time cyclist and I agree with the original premise. The bicycle is basically the same. Most of the differences between then and now are material and marketing.

The differences are evolutionary and minor. 100 years later you still have a frame with a steerable fork, two wheels, a crank, a chain*, teethed cogs and chainrings for propulsion and still disk brakes. Yes, the rim is also a disk.

If grabbed a guy with a time machine and put him on the modern mountain bike, it would take him all of about 10 seconds to figure out the differences.

*bike pictured is actually an exception in that it is a shaft drive. These have very inefficient mechanical transfer compared to a chain so even today are not popular. Modern chains are greater than 90% efficient.

I swear some people on here just live to be argumentative. Does anyone think these two things really look that similar or that nothing has been done to improve the basic design as the poster who originally made the analogy asserted?

 

[John Wayne]

People buy GI spec 1911s for the nostalgia, IMO. I don't know of anyone who actually carries a bottom-line mil spec 1911.

tipoc, would you not agree that a gun that retained the positive characteristics of the 1911, but made it lighter weight, more reliable across the board, and with less parts (for less money) would be an advantage? Integrated feed ramps, a linkless barrel...the things I mentioned earlier, without being limited to adhering to traditional 1911 format or compatability.

JohnBT cleared up point I was wondering about regarding the SAO guns designed from traditional DA/SA designs--I was specifically concerned that the trigger might be simply feel like a long/hard/mushy DA/SA gun fired in single action, rather than the refinement possible with a gun designed SAO from the ground up. In this respect it appears that there are a few more choices than I originally realized, but mosty in full-sized variants.

Is there untapped potential in the striker-fired market? Could the trigger be refined to the point of a SAO hammer-fired gun?

 

[GrandmasterB]

Just look at this forum or any other gun forum for the oerwhelming volume of topics like "is is safe to carry cocked & locked" or "condition 2 carry" etc. and you will be able to tell right away that there are a ton of folks (avid gun owners and newbies alike) who just are not comfortable with single action guns.

Add to that the bureaucrats who make the "politically correct" rules for LEOs and such, and you see the demise of the single action in those arenas for fear of being "unsafe". (don't get me started on cops who don't shoot or who don't know how to operate guns safely)

Gun manufacturers are going to make products they think will sell and sell well. So you see the plethora of polymer, striker fired guns out there since the Glock appeared, and you see more and more manufacturers today making 1911's because they still sell well.

But you don't see them introducing new single action only guns.

 

[tipoc]

Sam 1911,
For a very long time now folks have said that the 1911 would loose it's dominant position in competitive shooting. As I said, this is true, but so what? What it means is that 20 years ago, 15 years ago there were fewer good choices for folks to carry and shoot in competition. The 1911 dominated till others caught up. They had to work to compete against it. That transition has been ocurring. You seem to think that is bad for the 1911. It ain't. The tired old gun that you dislike, as a fact continues to hold it's own against the newcomers. It is no longer the dominant gun but there is no longer ONE dominant gun. CZs, Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, the M9 etc. now show up in the hands of top competitors. Many of these deeply influenced by the 1911 and the BHP. I believe that is a good thing, ain't it?

tipoc, would you not agree that a gun that retained the positive characteristics of the 1911, but made it lighter weight, more reliable across the board, and with less parts (for less money) would be an advantage? Integrated feed ramps, a linkless barrel...the things I mentioned earlier, without being limited to adhering to traditional 1911 format or compatability.

Yep, my point is that this has been happening. But the number of "safe action" triggers, slide mounted decocker guns, etc. is greater these days and will continue to be. Look when the first Sig P220s arrived in the U.S. marketed by Browning their da trigger pull was worse than that of the CZ75. The latter had a smooth long da pull unmatched by any sa/da gun on the market IMHO. That's no longer true today. Most sa/da guns have decent triggers now much better than even a decade ago. The da smoother and the sa crisp. That is because of the 1911, the work of gunsmiths and experience in the field. Even Glocks have improved and have multiple options available for triggers.

Personally I disagree with those who say the 1911 is unreliable, hard to field strip, outdated, too heavy, etc. If you don't like it well ya aren't required to. They are not "one size fits all". But the 1911s day as the service sidearm of choice was done at the end of the second world war. Militaries and cops want other than single action sidearms. They want to build the safety into a gun rather than take the time to train for safe gun handling. Jeff Cooper's old view that da/sa guns were an answer in search of a question lost out.

tipoc

 

[Sam1911]

Sam 1911,...You seem to think that is bad for the 1911. It ain't. The tired old gun that you dislike, as a fact continues to hold it's own against the newcomers.

WHAT? How did you misread me that badly? I LOVE my 1911! I still shoot it more than anything else (except for a year-long stint in wheel-gun land recently). And, no, I don't think it's bad, at all. I'm actually kind of proud of the 1911 design (yeah, like I had something to do with it ) for still being so very good, even with 100 years in which to be surpassed by newer designs!

It is no longer the dominant gun but there is no longer ONE dominant gun. CZs, Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, the M9 etc. now show up in the hands of top competitors. Many of these deeply influenced by the 1911 and the BHP. I believe that is a good thing, ain't it?

The only thing I'll beg to differ with you on is that I honestly believe that we are starting to see the dominant gun. And by the gun, I mean the Glock/M&P/xD "family" of guns. No one would argue that there is a substantive difference between them (aside from the good folks at IDPA HQ ) -- as one of my pals said when we had my xDM and his Glock 17 apart on the bench side-by-side, "Oh, look, they made the squarish bits round and the roundy bits square -- otherwise I think we could swap parts!" It seems like the manufacturers have just about narrowed down the platform that is the easiest for the most people to shoot reasonably well while still being reasonably accurate, reasonably powerful, reasonably safe, and reasonably cheap to produce. Aside from us tinkerers, hobbyists, loyalists, and sticks-in-the-mud who enjoy the variety of other weapon types, the world seems to have found the ergonomic and technical balance point. "The" gun for "Everyman Q. Public."

Honestly, looking at a recent ad for one or the other of the plastic wonder guns (I think it was for the M&P) that had all three lined up side-by-side, I was struck by how hard the designers had to work to make them seem distinct from each other at all! All that seems to be left dividing them are a bunch of patent-infringement lawyers!

-Sam

 

[tipoc]

The only thing I'll beg to differ with you on is that I honestly believe that we are starting to see the dominant gun. And by the gun, I mean the Glock/M&P/xD "family" of guns.

Now that's a stretch! The angle of the grip frame from the Glock to the XD is quite different as is the MP. One fits well in the hand while the other, at speed points low, and has the ergonomics of a brick. Glock has altered it's grip design some but is still behind the others. The M&P has an external safety. The XD a grip safety. These are different guns. A bit of a stretch to consider them all of a kind. If you were to consider polymer striker fired guns a family they still hold second place to others. Are all alloy framed, external hammer guns a family?

This "family" of striker fired guns is useful for law enforcement work (though the Glock has been losing ground here rapidly due to it's trigger and th closing of the price point with other guns) but has found no welcome in the U.S. military market. The M9 and Sigs designs have influence there with the striker guns out of the running. That could change of course but no time soon.

tipoc

 

[Sam1911]

Now that's a stretch! http://www.thehighroad.org/images/sm...biggrin.gifThe angle of the grip frame from the Glock to the XD is quite different as is the MP. One fits well in the hand while the other, at speed points low, and has the ergonomics of a brick. Glock has altered it's grip design some but is still behind the others. The M&P has an external safety. The XD a grip safety. These are different guns. A bit of a stretch to consider them all of a kind.

Bah, subtle differences. Important, perhaps, but the differences are very minor. Yes, the Glock has an odd grip angle which takes a shooter a few rounds down range to adjust to. The xD has a grip safety...that changes the manual of arms for the gun not one bit, and many shooters would probably not have noticed was there if it wasn't pointed out to them. The M&P CAN come with a thumb safety, but usually doesn't. It is NO stretch to say that they're substantively the same gun. Striker-fired, polymer-framed, "high" capacity autoloaders with a consistent trigger action, shot-to-shot, and some sort of "safe-action" trigger mechanism, all using the same lock-up, offered in the same variety of calibers, frame sizes, and barrel lengths, weighing within ounces of each other, and costing practically the same amount of money. Yeah, they're the same gun -- or they're narrowing in on the same ideal. Sure, they have their little differences, so we have some modicum of a "choice" to make when deciding which to buy, but nothing earth-shattering.

If you were to consider polymer striker fired guns a family they still hold second place to others.

In what way? To WHAT others? Our military hasn't picked one, yet. But that's no surprise. The military also doesn't rely much on handguns, and spends many millions in their never ending quest to not adapt. Now law enforcement...wow.

Are all alloy framed, external hammer guns a family?

No. That's silly. Considering all the different alloy-framed, external hammer autopistols: There are SAOs, DA/SAs, DAOs, high-capacity versions, single-stacks, guns with frame mounted safety/decockers, guns with that lever mounted on the slide, guns that are blow-back, or linkless, or rotating-barrel lockup, very heavy/bulky guns, very light/slim guns, and a huge variety of other differences. You can't say that a 1st generation S&W auto is the same gun as a Beretta 92 or a Sig, or an HK. But you sure can say that an xD and a Glock and an M&P are about 98% the same thing.

This "family" of striker fired guns is useful for law enforcement work (though the Glock has been losing ground here rapidly) but has found no welcome in the U.S. military market. The M9 and Sigs designs have influence there with the striker guns out of the running. That could change of course but no time soon.

Yes, it is true that the Glock has been losing ground. To the M&P, mostly. Yeah, the military... covered that.

The truth is, only time will tell, but I think we've boiled things down to a common denominator for autoloading handguns and the future belongs to the plastic striker-fired guns.

Ask me again in 40 years. Maybe cops and soldiers will be carrying S&W hand-ejectors, for all I know.

-Sam

 

[HisSoldier]

A buddy told me that Stars are only selling for big bucks because it's the only way to get parts.

Cute,

That would be an expensive way to get parts. The Firestars are very nice compact guns. They are a classic pistol in the view of many of us.

 

[JohnBT]

I know that same guy. How else would you get parts?

John

 

[EddieNFL]

Tell a cop who's required to carry 17 things on his belt that he should want a heavier gun because you think it's better.

I would want to carry whatever works best for me. IMO, choosing a weapon primarily because it's lighter or made from a particular material is foolish.

 

[tipoc]

I think that both directly and indirectly the ops question has been answered.

The U.S. military has selected alloy framed da/sa guns with decockers each time the question has arisen in the post war period. These are recent choices. It recently ordered more M9s. The Coast Guard opted for the Sig a few years back. Sigs are approved for a number of other units as well. Some special forces units use 1911s still. Few, if any, none I know of actually, use the polymer frame striker fired guns. The specs for what they want have ruled them out. Will that change in 10-20 years? Maybe.

I think there will always be a place for sa semis. Same as there is for wheelguns. It's interesting that you see in this thread that some think of the Glock type "safe action triggers" as single action (when they are not) due to the consistentcy of trigger pull from shot to shot.

tipoc