Best CQB Sidearm, 1911? Your thoughts. - Page 2

PeterGunn · July 6, 2008, 02:27 PM

I may be wrong in this, but in many military/LE operations there are very often multiple personnel working a common situation. Hence, while a single officer may only have 8/9 rounds, one should multiply the number of people who are present and focused on a given threat.

In solitude, certainly higher capacity is desireable but still the emphasis should be on shot placement and control.

WhyteP38 · July 6, 2008, 03:13 PM

I don't believe in a "best" CQB sidearm. It's all a matter of compromises. Are you military, LEO, or a regular civilian? All three have different needs and different priorities. Are you a big guy who can comfortably carry and conceal a full-sized pistol, or are you a small-framed person without much upper body strength who has trouble carrying, concealing, and operating a full-sized pistol? For example, the most powerful pistol my wife can handle is a .380. For her to carry a 1911 or a full-sized HK or Sig would be a disaster. For me, a Commander-sized .45 1911 is ideal.

You will be ill-served by pride and/or a devotion to a platform that is great for someone else but suboptimal for you. Don't get me wrong; it's good to get opinions - you can learn things and avoid mistakes that way - but those opinions are merely starting places. You need to continue on from there. A starkly realistic evaluation of your needs, your abilities, and your circumstances is the best way to settle on the "best" CQB sidearm for you.

RsqVet · July 6, 2008, 03:35 PM

Folks there is no "best" gun; just millions of folks looking for validation of themselves and their choices by means of association.

For me I'm fine with a 1911, I have read and researched and don't see the likely need for more than what I am carrying. At times I'm also fine with nothing or with a seecamp.

For the street cop who wants more rounds who am I to argue? Bad crud happens to those who go into harm's way. Heck let them sling theri carbines if they want.

For the commando type... whatever they want it's a secondary weapon anyway and they are with a few other guys so there is plenty of firepower to draw on. Besides they may have 4 - 6 x mag tucked away somewhere and can reload quicker then quick.

Heck for that matter anyone here want to take on Jerry Mickulek? You could have a Mp5 and a fair bit of skill and he might still cream you with a 45 acp REVOLVER!

As to the trigger control argument that applies mostly to folks who are in LE or civilians who may find themselves in a "stand off situation" with a suspect or agressor. EVEN there it's largley over-rated as no one worries much about the trigger pull or stroke on duty shotguns, patrol carbines or anything like that yet it gets made into a big deal to sell this gun over that one when it comes to duty pistols. When it comes to the spec ops types they get more trigger time in a month than many cops will get in a career so it's a non-issue.

Water-Man · July 6, 2008, 03:41 PM

7 - 8 rounds are usually enough for the military considering pistols are the secondary weapon used.

Snackycake · July 6, 2008, 05:46 PM

No doubt RSQVet. Miculek is a terror with a revolver. There is no way I would sign up for a straight up gunfight with that man.

The "capacity debate" was raging strong when I picked up my first carry gun 20 years ago and most of the names were even the same. And like many people here it seemed pure insanity to carry a gun with 8 rounds when you could carry a sort of similar gun with 15 (or 17 or 18) rounds.
My emphasis has changed over the years (and I carried a Glock for years and a Sig) and now capacity is the last think I look at in general. The very first thing I look at is how well I can shoot a particular gun (and shooting a even a little bit better with a given gun is a big deal), the second is reliability. Capacity is in there somwhere too, definitely. If I had two identical guns that I shot exactly the same and one of the guns weighed a little more and carried twice the ammo I would opt for that gun. I like more shots.
It wasn't until fairly lately that I really allowed that I don't shoot most high capacity guns as well as I do single stacks.

And speaking of Miculek, revolvers are not as antiquated as you might think. Go shoot along side some of the cowboy action shooters. They shoot as fast and more accurately than most of us semi-auto shooters. They just have 6 shots to get it done.

Niantician · July 6, 2008, 06:17 PM

If capacity is valued by those who miss most, then maybe we should give our Army and Marines bolt actions instead of M16's So what do you carry? 6, 7 rounds? Why not just 1 round? That's easily in the top 5 of most useless statements I've read on this site.

Snackycake · July 6, 2008, 10:02 PM

"That's easily in the top 5 of most useless statements I've read on this site."

Oh come on now! You must not be reading the right threads. I have seen a ton of posts more useless than that.

I think his quote could have read something like "High capacity is valued by those who miss the most....and by those who have more bad guys than bullets..."

I think his point has some validity even if it is a bit over-simplified.

When they first issued M-16's to our troops the most successful shooter around was a guy operating a bolt action Model 70 Winchester. His name was Carlos Hathcock. He had 93 confirmed kills and upward of 300 total confirmed/unconfirmed.

I know when I shoot a lower capacity weapon it tends to change my mindset a bit. I like high capacity guns because each bullet is an option, but the guys who shoot the best generally shoot lower capacity guns and I think there is a correlation.

.351winchester · July 6, 2008, 10:24 PM

Best CQB Sidearm, 1911? I'm not qualified to answer that, do know that if I had advanced knowledge of an armed confrontation and for some reason could not have shotgun or carbine, a 1911 would be my one and only choice. It is just very easy to shoot fast and accurate with, with as good a history of curling up BG's as any handgun except maybe the .357 Mag.
I never liked the feel of hi-cap 1911's but am starting to look that way. Maybe enough handling could make it acceptable to my ergonomic needs but the single stack is a complete joy to hold, and honestly how it should be. Be that as it may, a 14 rd. .45 Government size in alloy is, on paper, my perfect handgun, want to make myself love it.

Chindo18Z · July 6, 2008, 11:25 PM

In response to lux_aeternae:

Yes, the 1911 is more than adequate for CQB and 7-8 round .45 capacity is enough. More specifically, a bone stock government issued 1911A1 with a standard 7 rd magazine capacity works just fine and better than most. A 1911 with a few semi-custom tweaks (sights, grips, 8-10 rd mag, etc.) just improves the situation.

As to why that is so...

The weapon is very reliable, extremely durable, accurate enough, has great ergonomics (for most hands), requires little maintenance, uses an effective caliber, and has a fantastic trigger compared to most other service pistols (especially DA/SA semi-autos). It is quick to shoot and conducive to delivering an accurate first shot...which is important when you realize that CQB is mostly a long-gun event. Pistols allow you to instantaneously stay in the fight when your primary bullet launcher goes out of action.

I'm not remotely concerned with caliber debates. In my experience, it's all the same regarding service pistol semi-auto calibers. Shot placement and penetration counts. Everything else is splitting hairs.

As to why some "elites" choose the platform...it's usually just a function of availability and only occasionally has to do with personal preference.

Grown men who carry guns enjoy free toys as much as anyone. Hand everyone on your team a free custom 1911 and watch the smiles.

Today (like every day in Iraq) I wore a full sized 1911A1 for about 16 hours on my hip. I've been carrying essentially the same model of pistol all of my adult life, on-duty and off, issued or personally owned, since the mid-70's. It's kinda like an old and faithful dog. It's comfortable being with me and I'm comfortable with it being there.

I could carry an M9 or Glock 19 (as I have many times in the past). I could carry an M11, BHP, P7, or 226 (all of which are also available to me). I'll stick with the Colt.

It's enough for anything that an M4A1 can't handle. Anything the .45 can't handle is getting a frag thrown at it anyway...

Webleymkv · July 7, 2008, 12:26 AM

Quote:

when push comes to shove, is the 1911's 7+1 really enough in a CQB situation?

Yes unless you're fending off screaming hoardes. If that's the case, something belt fed on a turret in much more appropriate.

Richard · July 7, 2008, 12:39 AM

I own a bunch of handguns and the one I would choose for home defense/car&truck/range is my Para P14. I call the 45acp the "gentle giant" as it doesn't kick a lot and it does the job. Hell, I could even carry it if I had to. Regards, Richard

My P14:

imp · July 7, 2008, 12:55 AM

Just another thought for the fire. Many people don't like glocks, sigs, or h&k's. Each of those have a distinct quality that turn off some shooters. The 1911 is not only a fine firearm, but it dosen't have the heavy SA trigger of the Sig, it isn't plastic ( some people still have issue with polymer...) and it is more readily adaptable to individual shooters because of 97 years of refinement, and aftermarket goodies. Nobody HATES the 1911, whereas I can't say the same for all the others.

IanS · July 7, 2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Nobody HATES the 1911, whereas I can't say the same for all the others.

Wow, where have you been? Under a rock?

Catchabullet · July 7, 2008, 04:48 AM

one would say, if you need more than that. you don't target practice enough.

HorseSoldier · July 7, 2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Hello fellow gun enthusiasts. I was wondering if I could ask your educated opinion on the effectiveness of the 1911 as a CQB pistol. I love everything about the gun, but when push comes to shove, is the 1911's 7+1 really enough in a CQB situation?

What are you using the pistol for in CQB?

As a secondary weapon to draw if/when your primary long gun runs dry in the middle of an encounter, has a malfunction, etc., 7 (or 8) +1 is fine, particularly if you're working as part of a stack and have several other armed guys right behind or in front of you going into a room.

If, for whatever reason, you're only armed with a pistol, then a larger magazine capacity might start seeming more important.

Quote:

I have read that in recent years operators have been making the transition back to the tried and true 1911, from the LAPD Swat to the Marine Recon Expeditionary Unit to our Army's Delta Force. It seems that our elite, despite choices of other expensive fine sidearms, they chose to go with a user customized 1911. I initially found this surprising, due to the venerable reputation of the H&K and SIG firearms.

CAG/Delta Force's use of the 1911 is getting to be one of those internet myths at this point. Once upon a time, they used 1911s exclusively. For years, though, they've mostly used Glocks downrange.

Rifleman 173 · July 7, 2008, 09:51 AM

The 1911 is a very good gun but different groups often have their choice of duty pistol, even many of the elite groups, decided by a politician of some sort far off in the background. LAPD might of have the 1911 forced on them by the mayor or a councilman who has a buddy who deals in 1911s. The choice of a cqb pistol is NOT always done in a proper fashion. Many teams and individuals prefer reliability in their pistols so a lot of gun operators go with Glocks or other guns. Some Navy SEALs prefer the 9 mm Glocks because (a.) they use 9 mm MP-5 submachineguns for their primary weapon and that ammo fits their handguns too and (b.) the SEALs push/demand extremely good shot placement. In addition, the higher capacity Glocks allow SEALs the option of more ammo, not for more misses, but in case there are more targets to engage. Like the SEALs are known to say, "What does it matter which caliber of ammo that I use when I put 2 into your chest and 1 in your forehead?" So, in many cases, there may be hidden ulterior motives for why any gun gets selected for SWAT, police duty use or military duty uses. The only reason why our military went to the M-9 Beretta 9 mm pistol was because we needed a missle base in Italy and Beretta wanted a contract with our military forces. Tit for tat. That whole Beretta pistol deal and missle base procurement was nothing but politics from start to finish and the military got a high capacity firearm that none of the services really wanted at all. So the decision of which gun is best for cqb is yours. Which ever gun you choose to use, train hard and often with it and then train some more. Take classes from good instructors and from good training centers as often as you can. Once you've fired off about 25,000 rounds, taken a bunch of classes and have gotten really comfortable with your handgun then you'll know that the choice of any pistol to use for personal defense, home defense or cqb is all yours alone.

David Armstrong · July 8, 2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Nobody HATES the 1911, whereas I can't say the same for all the others.

Huh?? I'd hazard a guess that almost as many folks hate the 1911 as love it.

imp · July 8, 2008, 12:35 AM

I must live under a rock, I'm a conservative gun owner.

Honestly, I have never heard anyone complain about the 1911. I have heard people complain about particular brands of 1911 (kimber/RIA/llama) take your pick. But it is always a complaint about the quality of the particular firearm, not the design or function.

Seawolf_504 · July 8, 2008, 02:51 AM

I heard a gentleman, who served in Viet Nam, say once - "I wish we would have had these Glocks back in Viet Nam. I would have taken one of these things over a 1911 in a heart beat."

The reason he gave for this response was - "In the jungle you constantly had to field strip that 1911 and clean it. It was a nightmare to keep clean and functional under the conditions we were in. These Glocks are a lot more forgiving and no matter what that thing is going to go bang everytime you pull the trigger."

Now obviously that's just one man's opinion, but if you look at how handguns have evolved and especially modern handguns you can't deny the fact that weapons today are a lot more forgiving under extreme conditions. You can't take a $1,000 Kimber out of the box, dip it in mud, load it and shoot it and you probably wouldn't want to because you just spent $1,000 on the damn thing.
When you grab that 1911 off the nightstand will it go boom? absolutely, but will it handle the stress of 400 rounds during a day of qualifying without the need to break it down and oiling it? probably not.

I like the 1911 for thier history, looks, and soul, but if I was going into combat under extreme conditions I would want a gun that was reliable, accurate, and low maintenance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI5i6daoh_0
(relax, as a Kimber owner I thought it was funny.lol)
R Lee Ermy on the Glock (yeah Yeah I know he is on thier payroll, but there is some truth to what he says)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yr_c...eature=related

Rinspeed · July 8, 2008, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Huh?? I'd hazard a guess that almost as many folks hate the 1911 as love it.

Huh?? I'd hazard a guess that almost as many FOOLS hate the 1911 as love it.

Fixed it for you.

lux_aeternae · July 8, 2008, 09:09 AM

In a non-homosexual way, hearing you guys talk about guns makes me happy and I love it. Thanks again guys.

PeterGunn · July 8, 2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

The 1911 is a very good gun but different groups often have their choice of duty pistol, even many of the elite groups, decided by a politician of some sort far off in the background. LAPD might of have the 1911 forced on them by the mayor or a councilman who has a buddy who deals in 1911s. The choice of a cqb pistol is NOT always done in a proper fashion. Many teams and individuals prefer reliability in their pistols so a lot of gun operators go with Glocks or other guns. Some Navy SEALs prefer the 9 mm Glocks because (a.) they use 9 mm MP-5 submachineguns for their primary weapon and that ammo fits their handguns too and (b.) the SEALs push/demand extremely good shot placement. In addition, the higher capacity Glocks allow SEALs the option of more ammo, not for more misses, but in case there are more targets to engage. Like the SEALs are known to say, "What does it matter which caliber of ammo that I use when I put 2 into your chest and 1 in your forehead?" So, in many cases, there may be hidden ulterior motives for why any gun gets selected for SWAT, police duty use or military duty uses.

Politically speaking, the 1911 is a rat's nest (Single action preferred, .45, etc.). To non-shooters and political hacks, the 1911 is seen as an accident waiting to happen. DAO (ie true DAO not "safe action") sidarms have become prolific not because it is "better" but it is legally preferrable... period.

The SEALs have used SIG P226s (since the m9 trials and the Beretta selection) and HK SOCOM .45s primarily. While there may be some deploy Glock, I don't believe they are issued.

IanS · July 8, 2008, 12:09 PM

It doesn't do us any good to speculate the political or philosophical reasons why certain handguns were adopted. It could be all or none of those reasons. All we can factually look at is how these individual handguns have worked out for these individual units. And it is possible to get that kind of information, anecdotally and from the mouths of those who used them or are in close contact with them. And no matter the why's or how's it still doesn't change anything if an individual gun doesn't fit his/her individual needs. The 1911 or Glock could be the greatest gun in the world but if its too heavy to carry, or someone prefers more capacity, or if they're uncomfortable with a gun with no active safeties it doesn't really matter does it?

I think we tend to overstate the effectiveness of one handgun over another and get stuck over labels like "CQB" and "Tactical". All handguns are a convenient and expedient choice because we can't always have a shoulder fired weapon with us. All handguns are difficult to shoot well under stress and they're all underpowered. We all have to learn to do with them the best we can.

jeepster11 · July 8, 2008, 12:13 PM

my kimber custom 2 it shoots great no problems

RsqVet · July 8, 2008, 12:29 PM

Seawolf ---

If you are stating as a Kimber owner that they will not go 400 rounds without oiling, that is a KIMBER problem NOT a 1911 issue, or some issue with the amount of lube you are putting on it. It may run counter to what your DI told you and to what some believe however I don't think ANY gun can have too much lube unless you are filling the FP channel or barrel with it.

I'm a bit tired of Kimber's poor examples of 1911's being put up as evidance as to why the 1911 is inferior. I have several 1911's and they would not be worth a box of rocks to me if they WOULD NOT go 1k at the range easily, and these are very tight, highly accurate guns, NOT rattle traps. My std goal for a range session is 500-1k, and when new 1k is the minimum.

In fact the only gun I have kept that will not go 1k at the range without clening is a Sig 232... around 500-600 rounds it's simply too filled with crud to work reliably.

I'm not trying to deny that the glock is a great pistol, it is, so is the 1911 in a well made form and if finished in something like the glock finish it's pretty darn rugged in the field.

July 6, 2008, 02:27 PM	#26
PeterGunn Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 1999 Location: Cape Coral, FL Posts: 738	I may be wrong in this, but in many military/LE operations there are very often multiple personnel working a common situation. Hence, while a single officer may only have 8/9 rounds, one should multiply the number of people who are present and focused on a given threat. In solitude, certainly higher capacity is desireable but still the emphasis should be on shot placement and control. __________________ "By His stripes we are healed..." PeterGunn

July 6, 2008, 05:46 PM	#30
Snackycake Junior Member Join Date: June 30, 2008 Location: Eastern Washington Posts: 11	Amen No doubt RSQVet. Miculek is a terror with a revolver. There is no way I would sign up for a straight up gunfight with that man. The "capacity debate" was raging strong when I picked up my first carry gun 20 years ago and most of the names were even the same. And like many people here it seemed pure insanity to carry a gun with 8 rounds when you could carry a sort of similar gun with 15 (or 17 or 18) rounds. My emphasis has changed over the years (and I carried a Glock for years and a Sig) and now capacity is the last think I look at in general. The very first thing I look at is how well I can shoot a particular gun (and shooting a even a little bit better with a given gun is a big deal), the second is reliability. Capacity is in there somwhere too, definitely. If I had two identical guns that I shot exactly the same and one of the guns weighed a little more and carried twice the ammo I would opt for that gun. I like more shots. It wasn't until fairly lately that I really allowed that I don't shoot most high capacity guns as well as I do single stacks. And speaking of Miculek, revolvers are not as antiquated as you might think. Go shoot along side some of the cowboy action shooters. They shoot as fast and more accurately than most of us semi-auto shooters. They just have 6 shots to get it done.

July 6, 2008, 06:17 PM	#31
Niantician Senior Member Join Date: October 4, 2005 Location: Ct. Posts: 546	If capacity is valued by those who miss most, then maybe we should give our Army and Marines bolt actions instead of M16's So what do you carry? 6, 7 rounds? Why not just 1 round? That's easily in the top 5 of most useless statements I've read on this site. __________________ There are many things in life that are out of my control. Recoil isn't one of them.

July 6, 2008, 10:02 PM	#32
Snackycake Junior Member Join Date: June 30, 2008 Location: Eastern Washington Posts: 11	Top 5 "That's easily in the top 5 of most useless statements I've read on this site." Oh come on now! You must not be reading the right threads. I have seen a ton of posts more useless than that. I think his quote could have read something like "High capacity is valued by those who miss the most....and by those who have more bad guys than bullets..." I think his point has some validity even if it is a bit over-simplified. When they first issued M-16's to our troops the most successful shooter around was a guy operating a bolt action Model 70 Winchester. His name was Carlos Hathcock. He had 93 confirmed kills and upward of 300 total confirmed/unconfirmed. I know when I shoot a lower capacity weapon it tends to change my mindset a bit. I like high capacity guns because each bullet is an option, but the guys who shoot the best generally shoot lower capacity guns and I think there is a correlation.

July 6, 2008, 11:25 PM	#34
Chindo18Z Senior Member Join Date: July 23, 1999 Posts: 498	In response to lux_aeternae: Yes, the 1911 is more than adequate for CQB and 7-8 round .45 capacity is enough. More specifically, a bone stock government issued 1911A1 with a standard 7 rd magazine capacity works just fine and better than most. A 1911 with a few semi-custom tweaks (sights, grips, 8-10 rd mag, etc.) just improves the situation. As to why that is so... The weapon is very reliable, extremely durable, accurate enough, has great ergonomics (for most hands), requires little maintenance, uses an effective caliber, and has a fantastic trigger compared to most other service pistols (especially DA/SA semi-autos). It is quick to shoot and conducive to delivering an accurate first shot...which is important when you realize that CQB is mostly a long-gun event. Pistols allow you to instantaneously stay in the fight when your primary bullet launcher goes out of action. I'm not remotely concerned with caliber debates. In my experience, it's all the same regarding service pistol semi-auto calibers. Shot placement and penetration counts. Everything else is splitting hairs. As to why some "elites" choose the platform...it's usually just a function of availability and only occasionally has to do with personal preference. Grown men who carry guns enjoy free toys as much as anyone. Hand everyone on your team a free custom 1911 and watch the smiles. Today (like every day in Iraq) I wore a full sized 1911A1 for about 16 hours on my hip. I've been carrying essentially the same model of pistol all of my adult life, on-duty and off, issued or personally owned, since the mid-70's. It's kinda like an old and faithful dog. It's comfortable being with me and I'm comfortable with it being there. I could carry an M9 or Glock 19 (as I have many times in the past). I could carry an M11, BHP, P7, or 226 (all of which are also available to me). I'll stick with the Colt. It's enough for anything that an M4A1 can't handle. Anything the .45 can't handle is getting a frag thrown at it anyway... __________________ Figure The Odds...

July 6, 2008, 03:13 PM	#27
WhyteP38 Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2005 Location: Behind a keyboard. Posts: 1,565	I don't believe in a "best" CQB sidearm. It's all a matter of compromises. Are you military, LEO, or a regular civilian? All three have different needs and different priorities. Are you a big guy who can comfortably carry and conceal a full-sized pistol, or are you a small-framed person without much upper body strength who has trouble carrying, concealing, and operating a full-sized pistol? For example, the most powerful pistol my wife can handle is a .380. For her to carry a 1911 or a full-sized HK or Sig would be a disaster. For me, a Commander-sized .45 1911 is ideal. You will be ill-served by pride and/or a devotion to a platform that is great for someone else but suboptimal for you. Don't get me wrong; it's good to get opinions - you can learn things and avoid mistakes that way - but those opinions are merely starting places. You need to continue on from there. A starkly realistic evaluation of your needs, your abilities, and your circumstances is the best way to settle on the "best" CQB sidearm for you.

July 6, 2008, 03:35 PM	#28
RsqVet Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 2005 Posts: 2,474	Folks there is no "best" gun; just millions of folks looking for validation of themselves and their choices by means of association. For me I'm fine with a 1911, I have read and researched and don't see the likely need for more than what I am carrying. At times I'm also fine with nothing or with a seecamp. For the street cop who wants more rounds who am I to argue? Bad crud happens to those who go into harm's way. Heck let them sling theri carbines if they want. For the commando type... whatever they want it's a secondary weapon anyway and they are with a few other guys so there is plenty of firepower to draw on. Besides they may have 4 - 6 x mag tucked away somewhere and can reload quicker then quick. Heck for that matter anyone here want to take on Jerry Mickulek? You could have a Mp5 and a fair bit of skill and he might still cream you with a 45 acp REVOLVER! As to the trigger control argument that applies mostly to folks who are in LE or civilians who may find themselves in a "stand off situation" with a suspect or agressor. EVEN there it's largley over-rated as no one worries much about the trigger pull or stroke on duty shotguns, patrol carbines or anything like that yet it gets made into a big deal to sell this gun over that one when it comes to duty pistols. When it comes to the spec ops types they get more trigger time in a month than many cops will get in a career so it's a non-issue.

July 6, 2008, 03:41 PM	#29
Water-Man Senior Member Join Date: March 23, 2008 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 2,126	7 - 8 rounds are usually enough for the military considering pistols are the secondary weapon used.

July 6, 2008, 10:24 PM	#33
.351winchester Junior member Join Date: December 31, 2005 Location: MI Posts: 1,013	Best CQB Sidearm, 1911? I'm not qualified to answer that, do know that if I had advanced knowledge of an armed confrontation and for some reason could not have shotgun or carbine, a 1911 would be my one and only choice. It is just very easy to shoot fast and accurate with, with as good a history of curling up BG's as any handgun except maybe the .357 Mag. I never liked the feel of hi-cap 1911's but am starting to look that way. Maybe enough handling could make it acceptable to my ergonomic needs but the single stack is a complete joy to hold, and honestly how it should be. Be that as it may, a 14 rd. .45 Government size in alloy is, on paper, my perfect handgun, want to make myself love it.

July 7, 2008, 12:39 AM	#36
Richard Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 1,305	I own a bunch of handguns and the one I would choose for home defense/car&truck/range is my Para P14. I call the 45acp the "gentle giant" as it doesn't kick a lot and it does the job. Hell, I could even carry it if I had to. Regards, Richard My P14:

July 7, 2008, 12:55 AM	#37
imp Senior Member Join Date: November 11, 2006 Posts: 626	Just another thought for the fire. Many people don't like glocks, sigs, or h&k's. Each of those have a distinct quality that turn off some shooters. The 1911 is not only a fine firearm, but it dosen't have the heavy SA trigger of the Sig, it isn't plastic ( some people still have issue with polymer...) and it is more readily adaptable to individual shooters because of 97 years of refinement, and aftermarket goodies. Nobody HATES the 1911, whereas I can't say the same for all the others.

July 7, 2008, 04:48 AM	#39
Catchabullet Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2008 Location: Arizona Posts: 317	more than 7 +1 one would say, if you need more than that. you don't target practice enough. __________________ I may be a Scientist but....I never said I was smart.

July 7, 2008, 09:51 AM	#41
Rifleman 173 Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 589	The 1911 is a very good gun but different groups often have their choice of duty pistol, even many of the elite groups, decided by *a politician* of some sort far off in the background. LAPD might of have the 1911 forced on them by the mayor or a councilman who has a buddy who deals in 1911s. The choice of a cqb pistol is *NOT* always done in a proper fashion. Many teams and individuals prefer reliability in their pistols so a lot of gun operators go with Glocks or other guns. Some Navy SEALs prefer the 9 mm Glocks because (a.) they use 9 mm MP-5 submachineguns for their primary weapon and that ammo fits their handguns too and (b.) the SEALs push/demand extremely good shot placement. In addition, the higher capacity Glocks allow SEALs the option of more ammo, not for more misses, but in case there are more targets to engage. Like the SEALs are known to say, "What does it matter which caliber of ammo that I use when I put 2 into your chest and 1 in your forehead?" So, in many cases, there may be hidden ulterior motives for why any gun gets selected for SWAT, police duty use or military duty uses. The only reason why our military went to the M-9 Beretta 9 mm pistol was because we needed a missle base in Italy and Beretta wanted a contract with our military forces. Tit for tat. That whole Beretta pistol deal and missle base procurement was nothing but politics from start to finish and the military got a high capacity firearm that *none of the services* really wanted at all. So the decision of which gun is best for cqb is yours. Which ever gun you choose to use, train hard and often with it and then train some more. Take classes from good instructors and from good training centers as often as you can. Once you've fired off about 25,000 rounds, taken a bunch of classes and have gotten really comfortable with your handgun then you'll know that the choice of any pistol to use for personal defense, home defense or cqb *is all yours alone*.

July 8, 2008, 12:35 AM	#43
imp Senior Member Join Date: November 11, 2006 Posts: 626	I must live under a rock, I'm a conservative gun owner. Honestly, I have never heard anyone complain about the 1911. I have heard people complain about particular brands of 1911 (kimber/RIA/llama) take your pick. But it is always a complaint about the quality of the particular firearm, not the design or function.

July 8, 2008, 02:51 AM	#44
Seawolf_504 Member Join Date: June 26, 2008 Posts: 41	I heard a gentleman, who served in Viet Nam, say once - "I wish we would have had these Glocks back in Viet Nam. I would have taken one of these things over a 1911 in a heart beat." The reason he gave for this response was - "In the jungle you constantly had to field strip that 1911 and clean it. It was a nightmare to keep clean and functional under the conditions we were in. These Glocks are a lot more forgiving and no matter what that thing is going to go bang everytime you pull the trigger." Now obviously that's just one man's opinion, but if you look at how handguns have evolved and especially modern handguns you can't deny the fact that weapons today are a lot more forgiving under extreme conditions. You can't take a $1,000 Kimber out of the box, dip it in mud, load it and shoot it and you probably wouldn't want to because you just spent $1,000 on the damn thing. When you grab that 1911 off the nightstand will it go boom? absolutely, but will it handle the stress of 400 rounds during a day of qualifying without the need to break it down and oiling it? probably not. I like the 1911 for thier history, looks, and soul, but if I was going into combat under extreme conditions I would want a gun that was reliable, accurate, and low maintenance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI5i6daoh_0 (relax, as a Kimber owner I thought it was funny.lol) R Lee Ermy on the Glock (yeah Yeah I know he is on thier payroll, but there is some truth to what he says) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yr_c...eature=related

July 8, 2008, 09:09 AM	#46
lux_aeternae Junior Member Join Date: July 5, 2008 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 8	In a non-homosexual way, hearing you guys talk about guns makes me happy and I love it. Thanks again guys.

July 8, 2008, 12:09 PM	#48
IanS Senior Member Join Date: October 7, 2000 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,632	It doesn't do us any good to speculate the political or philosophical reasons why certain handguns were adopted. It could be all or none of those reasons. All we can factually look at is how these individual handguns have worked out for these individual units. And it is possible to get that kind of information, anecdotally and from the mouths of those who used them or are in close contact with them. And no matter the why's or how's it still doesn't change anything if an individual gun doesn't fit his/her individual needs. The 1911 or Glock could be the greatest gun in the world but if its too heavy to carry, or someone prefers more capacity, or if they're uncomfortable with a gun with no active safeties it doesn't really matter does it? I think we tend to overstate the effectiveness of one handgun over another and get stuck over labels like "CQB" and "Tactical". All handguns are a convenient and expedient choice because we can't always have a shoulder fired weapon with us. All handguns are difficult to shoot well under stress and they're all underpowered. We all have to learn to do with them the best we can. __________________ Owning a certain handgun isn't a Lifestyle Choice nor is it a Personal Statement. It either works for you or it doesn't. The best article about the 1911 on the internet: http://www.10-8performance.com/1911_Duty_Use.html

July 8, 2008, 12:13 PM	#49
jeepster11 Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2008 Location: fairborn ohio Posts: 175	i love my kimber custom 2 it shoots great no problems

July 8, 2008, 12:29 PM	#50
RsqVet Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 2005 Posts: 2,474	Seawolf --- If you are stating as a Kimber owner that they will not go 400 rounds without oiling, that is a KIMBER problem NOT a 1911 issue, or some issue with the amount of lube you are putting on it. It may run counter to what your DI told you and to what some believe however I don't think ANY gun can have too much lube unless you are filling the FP channel or barrel with it. I'm a bit tired of Kimber's poor examples of 1911's being put up as evidance as to why the 1911 is inferior. I have several 1911's and they would not be worth a box of rocks to me if they WOULD NOT go 1k at the range easily, and these are very tight, highly accurate guns, NOT rattle traps. My std goal for a range session is 500-1k, and when new 1k is the minimum. In fact the only gun I have kept that will not go 1k at the range without clening is a Sig 232... around 500-600 rounds it's simply too filled with crud to work reliably. I'm not trying to deny that the glock is a great pistol, it is, so is the 1911 in a well made form and if finished in something like the glock finish it's pretty darn rugged in the field.