Would you trust your life to a 1911?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by seeker_two

Maybe we need a "Reliable 1911 Checkout Thread" stickied....

No, we don't.

I've had 1911s that choked on one particular brand of ammo but ran 100 percent with anything else.

I've had 1911s that choked with certain magazines but would run 100 percent with any other combination of ammo and magazine.

I bought one used 1911 that wouldn't make it through a full magazine of anything. Factory looked at it, and reported that none of the internals were OEM (even though the seller maintained it had never been fired). Replaced all the "custom" parts with standard (mostly factory) parts and since then it has been completely reliable.

The only real test of reliability is to pick the gun, magazine(s) and ammo you want to use and fire 200/300/400/500 rounds through it ... with NO stoppages.If it stops, fix the problem and start over. Pick whatever number you feel comfortable with, but remember that premium self defense ammo in .45 Auto is running about a dollar a round. So if you think it needs 500 failure-free rounds for you to feel comfortable carrying that weapon -- get ready to burn up $500 worth of ammo.

[jmr40]

pick the gun, magazine(s) and ammo you want to use and fire 200/300/400/500 rounds through it ... with NO stoppages.If it stops, fix the problem and start over.

So I'm supposed to spend $300-$600 on ammo before I should trust my gun. This is just an excuse for shoddy workmanship. If a gun, any gun, does not work right out of the box it is gone. No excuses. I'd never trust it again no matter who worked on it.

[Mello2u]

hlds54

Would you trust your life to a 1911?

Yes.
That is what I have been doing for the last thirty years.

[KyJim]

I often carry a 1911, mostly in cooler weather when clothing permits. I love 1911s but the fact remains there are so many variables in today's 1911s that you'd be crazy not to put 300 rounds or more through one before trusting it. For me, the benefits outweigh the additional cost (plus it's just fun to shoot). I understand why some people won't do this. For them, there are other choices.

[Adamantium]

So I'm supposed to spend $300-$600 on ammo before I should trust my gun. This is just an excuse for shoddy workmanship. If a gun, any gun, does not work right out of the box it is gone. No excuses. I'd never trust it again no matter who worked on it.

My reloads cost me $4 per hundred, so the choice to spend $300-600 on factory ammo is yours alone. But if you are an adult it is your choice if and when you trust something without the approval of some random stranger on the internet.

[arch308]

I am new to the world of 1911 having been a Glock man for 30 years. About 4 months ago I got a wild hair and wanted to see what all the fuss was about with the 1911 platform. I'd read alot about them but had only shot one once, a Colt Delta Elite I believe, and it didn't like the way I held it and twice in one mag I had to reposition my hand to get the grip safety to work. For my money that's worthless and left a bad taste in my mouth.
So I figured I'd try a low priced one and see what all the fuss is about. I bought a used RIA full sized pistol, took it home and with a little help from U-TUBE I field stripped it and cleaned & lubed it. Next trip to the range it came along with a few boxes of my reloads. I was kinda impressed with the feel and trigger. The accuracy was very good and it ate my reloads without a hitch! HMMMMM.
After a few more trips to the range I was getting the urge to splurge. I mean, if this cheap one works & feels so good the higher priced should be even better, right? Well, I setteled on a Kimber Pro CDP II. Beautiful gun and feels perfect in my hand. After the ole clean & lube I grabbed 250 rnds of my reloads and headed to the range.
I've read time & time again about Kimber's being ammo sensitive so was a little aprehensive but the thing ran perfectly. I'm in love.
But to answer the OP's question, yes I would definitly trust my life to either of my 1911s and any other after proving them at the range. They are legend for a reason and I finally understand why.

[ScottieG59]

As many have said, not all 1911s are the same. I used to carry my Springfield Armory 1911A1 quite a bit. It handled most ammo well and never had reliability problems. I always use the best magazines and I take care of them.

I would have no problem carrying it now except for it not being drop safe. When I got it, I wanted something just like what we used in the Army.

I would not want a 1911 with a cast frame or slide. There are many out there made with castings.

A lot if the Army 1911s were not in great shape and some were not serviceable after decades in storage. I thought it was strange we were using pistols made in the 1940s into the 1980s.

Basically, you have to make sure your pistol works with your ammo. There is no easy answer that does not involve testing and building confidence in your choice.

[mavracer]

I wouldn't trust any gun that I haven't checked out. I have several 1911s that I'd trust my life to.

[Slamfire]

I would and do trust my life with double action revolvers.

Autopistols, depends on the autopistol.

M1911’s, well I would only carry it if I had to.

I don’t like carrying cocked and locked as I had the safety bump off in concealed carry. You can say all you want about the thing will not go off because of this and that, but, that’s your decision.

Also, you can bump the safety on, when you want to shoot. Only happened once to me with a Les Baer with a real easy safety, sure surprised me when the pistol would not go off, and it was only target practice, but it happens and happens to others. Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch makes you ride the safety because he has seen “Nationally ranked” individuals bump the safety on at his facility during the training he teaches. I did not see the Top Shot episode, but a Seal bumped his M1911 safety on in one of those competitions.

If I am going to carry a semi auto it will have an operating system like this SIG. A long and heavy trigger pull for the first shot, or you thumb cock it, single action thereafter. No safeties, a decocker.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jmr40

So I'm supposed to spend $300-$600 on ammo before I should trust my gun. This is just an excuse for shoddy workmanship. If a gun, any gun, does not work right out of the box it is gone. No excuses. I'd never trust it again no matter who worked on it.

No, it's not an excuse for shoddy workmanship. I'm a 1911 guy, and when I see certain high-end 1911 makers telling their customers that they need 500 rounds through the gun to break it in, and that they shouldn't expect it to run reliably before this "break-in" period ... I agree with you completely. First and foremost, a firearm is a weapon, and it should function reliably out of the box. Period.

That's not the same thing as proving that a particular example of a Magnacorp Megablaster X27C is actually completely reliable. Firearms, like every other manufactured item, are built to tolerances. For 1911s, if built to original Ordnance specs, the tolerance is generally .005". (Not plus-or-minus .005" -- that would be a total range of .010". For the 1911, the tolerance for most dimensions has a TOTAL range of .005". Some parts have a smaller range.) Thus, it is possible to have two pistols, both absolutely within spec, yet one is as loose as a goose and the other is as tight as a new shoe. Even if Magnacorp doesn't consider a break-in period necessary, it is nonetheless possible that either tolerance stacking or, yes, a defective part could render a particular gun unsuitable because of reliability issues.

How can you check for reliability? You can't do it by inspecting the parts, not even with a microscope. The only way to prove reliability is to shoot it, and see if it's reliable. This is very different from a "break-in," because with the guns calling for break-in they are expected to jam during the break-in. So, with those, you have to shoot 500 rounds of "break-in" ammo before you even start to shoot however many rounds you consider necessary to prove reliability.

[Striker1]

I think sometimes it is not understood just how many different pistols fall under the general term "1911" with no standard spec adhered to. Try that with any other popular handgun (Glock, HK, SIG...etc) and see how they turn out.

[Denezin]

Yep i definetly would. Saw a glock vs 1911 test on youtube. Said the 1911 gun was a target model. they put it in dirt and guess what? it jammed. Well duh its a tight fitted match grade pistol. Why not break out the msnbc bombs to blow up truck gas tanks why we are at it then say they arent safe.

[BIG P]

Not out of the box,2 out of the last 3 I bought had to have work right out of the box before they would clear a whole clip,stove pipe,fte.

After you work out the bug Hell yeah,not before.

[willmc33]

JMR40 we are eye to eye with that. If a gun requires a "break in" I will move to a gun that doesnt. If a gunn breaks I write it off as a loss and I move on. I just cant trust it after that. I am just in the 1911 game. So far so good.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by willmc33

JMR40 we are eye to eye with that. If a gun requires a "break in" I will move to a gun that doesnt. If a gunn breaks I write it off as a loss and I move on. I just cant trust it after that. I am just in the 1911 game. So far so good.

Read my post #33. JMR40 confused "break-in" with proving reliability. They are not the same thing.

Assume you buy a pistol -- any pistol -- that the manufacturer absolutely guarantees does NOT need any break-in. You want to carry it for self defense. How do you satisfy yourself that it is 100 percent reliable with the specific self defense ammo you plan to carry if you don't shoot 'X' number of rounds through it to demonstrate reliability?

[kraigwy]

Would you trust your life to a 1911?

I would and did, but that was with a USGI 1911a1 in SE Asia.

I haven't had to but would, trust my Series 70 Gold Cup.

I wouldn't own a gimmicked up 1911 (or any other gun) that gave me reliability problems wheather I carried it for protection or not.

[dahermit]

It seems latley that people have called the reliabiliy of the 1911 into question. As in its not suitable for carry, defense, etc. That it is only good for competition shooting and to look at. I dissagree I wouldnt carry my 1911 Range Officer but i would to a colt series 70, 80, or some of Springfields other models. What do you all think?

Geeezzzze! This thread got off topic. He posed a legitimate question.
On topic: I have owned four Colt 1911's over the years. Three from the seventies, one of current production.

Of the four, only one proved to be reliable out of the box. The problems with them were not readily apparent; the issues were intermittent and I can imagine scenarios where I would have assumed that they were working correctly after a couple of hundred rounds and in those scenarios, the stoppages that occurred could have resulted in misfortune. I have not had such issues with other autos, and certainly not revolvers.
Therefore, IMO the 1911 especially, needs to be rigorously tested (new, out of the box), and examined beyond that required of all other platforms I have owned. That is based on my own personal experiences together with my interest in following the problems and comments of other 1911 owners.
The only question that remains for me is: Are the problems encountered with 1911's the result of poor design (other designs Browning HP, Sigs and Glocks, etc. seem to have fewer problems, fewer moving parts), or lack of quality control at the manufacturer? In my case, it has always a matter of poor quality control in that the parts were out of spec. and once they addressed, reliably was no longer an issue.
And that begs the question: I have learned not to trust a 1911 until I have subjected it to intense scrutiny, but what about the new guy, who will crank a hindered rounds through it and think he is good to go?

[Hunter Customs]

Would you trust your life to a 1911?

Yes, I've done so numerous times and the 1911 is still my primary handgun.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

[HKGuns]

This may be the silliest question ever posed. There is no other pistol with the longevity and combat experience of the 1911. It is silly to think you couldn't trust your life to it.

I'm referring to the original full size 1911, not the pint sized alternatives. I don't think are nearly as reliable as the original full sized model. But I would imagine most of them are still good enough on which to trust your life.

[johnwilliamson062]

Like others have pointed out, no one is doubting the GI 1911 with ball ammo. The problem seems to be when companies make them stubby and owners try to shoot HPs out of them.
Then you start to get into questions like:
"Is a HP in such and such caliber better than a ball 45?"
"Is the 9mm HP double stack micro you carry every day better than the 1911 loaded with ball you left at home b/c it wasn't comfortable to conceal?"

Also mixed into this is the fact that there are some "custom" 1911s being sold for very high prices that seem to be less than consistently reliable. No, I don't care if you bought one and have 5,000 rounds through it with no stoppages. That doesn't contradict what I just said in the slightest.

The above is just a summary of internet lore. I don't have a 1911 and although on the long list, one is not on the short list.

[overkill0084]

To one I have been able to vet and verify reliability? Yes. But then, that criteria applies to ANY firearm, regardless of design, I intend to carry or put on nightstand duty.

I currently carry a DW CCO.

[dahermit]

...Like others have pointed out, no one is doubting the GI 1911 with ball ammo. The problem seems to be when companies make them stubby and owners try to shoot HPs out of them...

In my case, the problem was neither that I was shooting HP's in them, nor was it that the Colt 1911's I had problems with were "stubbies". It was bad parts, incorrect fitting, or extractor not bent correctly. In each case, things that should have been caught by quality control.

[buckhorn_cortez]

So I'm supposed to spend $300-$600 on ammo before I should trust my gun. This is just an excuse for shoddy workmanship. If a gun, any gun, does not work right out of the box it is gone. No excuses. I'd never trust it again no matter who worked on it.

So, your idea is that you take any gun, put it in your holster and carry it without proving it works? Okay...not very prudent... but, it's your life...

I never understand the problem with running ammunition through a gun. You're SHOOTING. Isn't that why you bought the thing? Look at it as practice. Do double taps, magazine dumps....shoot competition. Get used to using the gun, operating the controls, and making sure it works under all conditions...and this is a problem....how?

Oh...it cost you MONEY....then don't buy the gun in the first place if you don't think you want to spend money on ammunition.

[Hunter Customs]

I think sometimes it is not understood just how many different pistols fall under the general term "1911" with no standard spec adhered to. Try that with any other popular handgun (Glock, HK, SIG...etc) and see how they turn out.

Amen

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

[Coltman 77]

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I've loved Colt 1911's since I bought my first one in 1975.

But that was many years ago and now I tend to agree with Larry Vickers assessment of the 1911, although I prefer HK sidearms to Glocks :

The 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta’s primary firearms instructor, Larry Vickers worked in a place that put more than a million rounds a year through 1911s. He’s a founding member of the International Defensive Pistol Association and is a member of the American Pistolsmiths Guild. When he says he’s seen everything that can go wrong with a 1911, I believe him.

“Now, I shoot a Glock,” Vickers tells me. “Make sure you tell guys that the 1911 is a pain in the ass. If they don’t like messing around with the pistol and spending a grand to really get it tuned, then they should forget it.”

Modern pistol designs have made the 1911 obsolete in it’s role as a combat sidearm. It’s finicky and demands constant attention that a warfighter can’t afford to offer. But when it’s tuned and running well, it’s the most accurate pistol out there.

But the 1911 is not a plug-and-play platform. Even a $2,000 semi-custom 1911 likely will need a pricey trip to a gunsmith for tweaking. Changing out all but the simplest parts will demand expert hand filing and fitting.

“I’ve had guys sell their pistols after taking my 1911 armoring class because they realized the gun just wasn’t for them,” Vickers says.

Link to full article: http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...ur-first-1911/