The Gospel According to John Moses Browning

[Sisco]

http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/jmb.htm

[ronin308]

That rocks!

[Double Naught Spy]

As with the Bible and many other religious books, I see that there several inconsistencies in the Gospel According to JMB. Me thinks the Church of the 1911 has seen fit to only print those passages they feel are relevant, editing as needed to their concerns, interpreting as they go along and thereby mixing fact and opinion.

The abomination of the claim that there was only the 1911 in the beginning is quite sad, as if his Holiness did nothing of significance prior to that time. The suggestion that his Holiness would never allow additions to his creation and that he would have despised plastic is simply post hoc rationalization of non-existent scripture, propagated by the Church of the 1911 as a means of social control. The Church does not want you to even look at other models, much less embrace them. They fear that such insight might lead followers from the Church. In short, they are very insecure about their tenuous religious position and have resorted to such tactics when faced with new information and new models.

Those who have studied JMB with an open eye have come to realize that he was quite innovative, forward looking, and would not be the close-minded exclusionist many of his followers in the Church of the 1911 have become.

FOR SHAME!!!!!!!

[Smaug]

As a side note, JMB did make a lot of other nice designs besides the 1911. (and I'm not talking about the Hi-Power either)

His 1904 model was right sexy, and with only one external lever besides the trigger. It's a shame those aren't made any more. Maybe Colt will start making those again when they have finished beating the 1911 into the ground. Lord knows they haven't had an original idea in ages... :o *ducking*

[Quartus]

Lord knows they haven't had an original idea in ages...

:D

[Bruce Layne]

There is no doubt from the quality and quantity of his work that John Moses Browning was a very innovative and intelligent guy. His designs were far ahead of their time.

However, they weren't a century ahead of their time. We've learned a lot about semiautomatics and internal ballistics since Browning blazed the trail for us. But now that trail is a superhighway.

It is no disgrace that the 1911 is no longer a technically relevant handgun. It has a lot of historical relevance, and that makes it interesting to shoot. But you'd have to be a luddite to choose a 1911 on its technical merits with so many better modern choices available. Can you name any other 100 year old technology that is still useful today? Do you drive a Ford Model T? Do airlines fly giant versions of the Wright Flyer?

I think John Moses Browning's genius was channeled by Gaston Glock, when his innovations revolutionized the semiautomatic handgun industry. If JMB was designing handguns today, I'd bet they'd look a lot like a Glock or one of the Glock derivatives.

Isn't it interesting how technological advancements are seldom linear, but rather advancement occurs in discrete jumps? Like evolution, there is a period of slow progress where subtle changes and refinements occur, then suddenly the next big advancement takes place. If you want to really change an industry, don't ask what little tweek you can apply to an existing design. Get out a clean piece of paper.

[Dave R]

the 1911 is no longer a technically relevant handgun.

Then why are so many manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, making them? And why are so many people buying them? Solely for nostalgia's sake?

[LiveWire]

Thus spake Pope JoMo. Smacks of infalibility, don' it?
...
Then why are so many manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, making them?Prob'ly for the same reason swords and crossbows are still made. They are cool and they do every bit the job they were intended for. Not because they are the most sophisticated and efficient weapons to be had.

Other answer: That's where the money is.

[Bruce Layne]

Then why are so many manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, making them? And why are so many people buying them? Solely for nostalgia's sake?

I think there are two effects at work.

On the supply side, it's easy to manufacture a product you're already making. The design, tooling and employee training are already paid for so there are no additional development costs. From a business perspective, that's a sweet job if you can get it.

On the demand side, there are definitely people who still like to shoot the venerable 1911. Many seem to consider it the pinacle of semiautomatic handgun design. I think it's more true that it was a phenomenal and revolutionary weapon when it was introduced, and it was the basis for all the semiautomatic improvements that have occurred in the last 93 years.

I could draw an analogy between the dog owners who select dogs that look like they do, and then point out that the .45 ACP cartridge is old, fat and slow. But I'm getting pretty old, fat and slow myself, so I guess I can't be too critical in that regard.

I think the .45 ACP is a good round, but there are several great modern rounds, depending on the specific requirements. It's a testament to the .45 ACP that it has held up as well as it has.

I'm grateful to John Moses Browning for his legacy of semiautomatic handguns. The recent models have achieved the reliability of the simple revolvers, but with a lot more rounds and a more ergonomic shape. In my view, the best way to pay homage to Mr. Browning is to carry a high quality modern semiauto. He was a state-of-the-art kind of guy. While it was great for its time, I doubt he'd be interested in the 1911 today. He'd be taking advantage of modern materials, manufacturing techniques, powder formulations and ballistics information that were not available when he designed the 1911.

There are not a lot of armies or police departments that use the 1911 today. Why? Because there are better tools for the job.

I'm glad that people shoot the 1911s. They have great historical significance, and they're fun to shoot. But I can't see how some people can believe that the 1911 is mechanically better than a modern handgun design, and I don't see how anyone can argue the .45 ACP cartridge is as good as modern cartridge designs.

A hundred years from now, the handguns of today will be museum relics and curiosities. Technology will produce better weapons than those we have today. People will still be shooting 1911s because they started the semiautomatic pistol era, just as people nostalgically shoot black powder muzzle loading pistols today. But nobody is claiming a muzzle loader is better for self defense than modern handguns because a .50 pumpkin ball is larger than a .40 S&W.

[Boats]

There is no doubt from the quality and quantity of his work that John Moses Browning was a very innovative and intelligent guy. His designs were far ahead of their time.

Couldn't one just sense the left-handed compliment coming? I could.

However, they weren't a century ahead of their time. We've learned a lot about semiautomatics and internal ballistics since Browning blazed the trail for us. But now that trail is a superhighway.

One can only guess what the author means by "learning a lot about semi-automatics" and "internal ballistics." Pray tell, what do these vague phrases mean?

It is no disgrace that the 1911 is no longer a technically relevant handgun. It has a lot of historical relevance, and that makes it interesting to shoot. But you'd have to be a luddite to choose a 1911 on its technical merits with so many better modern choices available.

Names please. Are you seriously arguing that there are pistols out there that cannot be matched, even today, by a well made 1911A1?

Can you name any other 100 year old technology that is still useful today?

Well gee, I find alternating current still useful. The telephone, the internal combustion engine, powered flight, and zippers of all things too.

Do you drive a Ford Model T? Do airlines fly giant versions of the Wright Flyer?

And this of course, doesn't follow at all. At the heart of the latest Benz is a variation of the IC engine. Its added on doohickeys and efficiency may have improved, but the false analogy is that the 1911 pistol has remained static, because it most decidedly has not.

I think John Moses Browning's genius was channeled by Gaston Glock, when his innovations revolutionized the semiautomatic handgun industry.

Name all of the "innovations" in the Glock 17 that were not derivations of a feature found on an earlier pistol. Strikers? Too many to mention, but Steyr generally recognized as the innovator. Plastic? The ugly HK-VP70 comes to mind. Not using an external safety? Didn't SIG pioneer that concept in the 70s with the P220. Mushy trigger? Nah. Many pistols before the Glock had awful triggers, but none I think put the safety on the trigger. Polygonal rifling? Another rip-off from HK. Glock popularized a mongrelized set of features and put a tough finish on it, but he didn't invent anything so much as synthesize somebody else's ideas. The irony is that the Glocksters malign the XD for doing the same thing.

If JMB was designing handguns today, I'd bet they'd look a lot like a Glock or one of the Glock derivatives.

Well here I agree you could be right because most of the designs of today were not derived from alternate operating principles, but from Browning's. The exceptions continue to exist, but are relatively rarer. If a "modern" pistol is not like the Beretta 92's derivation from the Walther P-38, or their Cougar being a variant of an old Steyr rotating barrel design, a gas blowback like the HKP7, or toggle actioned like the Luger, then they are all derived from Browning's short recoil action. Browning had already made "hammerless" pistols and other designs that were not the 1911 by his death. You tout materials advantages that Browning could not employ, not anything that is remarkably brilliant about later designs. If there were something a helluva lot better than the 1911 at many things, there wouldn't be nearly as many 1911s today. Your unwarranted implication is that 1911 buying is almost all a nostalgia phenomenon. Somehow, many elite shooters and units select and reselect the "obsolete" 1911A1 based on its technical merits.

On one level or another almost every tilt-barrel auto design is a rip-off of Browning

Isn't it interesting how technological advancements are seldom linear, but rather advancement occurs in discrete jumps? Like evolution, there is a period of slow progress where subtle changes and refinements occur, then suddenly the next big advancement takes place. If you want to really change an industry, don't ask what little tweek you can apply to an existing design. Get out a clean piece of paper.

Were still waiting for that "evolutionary jump." It simply hasn't happened yet. There has been no paradigm shift in sidearms from the time of John Browning. Hunks of lead fired by chemical propulsion and that self feed as long as there are rounds in the magazine are still all the rage. Some folks don't even think those are necessarily an improvement on double action revolvers. And if Jerry Miculek is the shooter, they are not. :D

Show me an efficient handheld directed energy weapon ala Star Wars or Star Trek, and I might agree that an evolutionary jump has occured. If not, you're talking through your hat.

[LiveWire]

...since Browning blazed the trail for usBrowning's designs were improvements on Borchardt's and Luger's. Designs which, in turn, were improved by others.

He was a link more than a trailblazer.

[Handy]

I'm going to agree with Boats. While he sees the 1911 as a highpoint that we have no real need to surpass, I see the complete lack of innovation in the firearms industry (certain exceptions, like Benelli) and shudder.

Current popular sidearms show a decided lack of any meaningful improvement since over 100 year old designs. I have heard it said that gun companies don't even employ gun designers - they just pay industrial engineers to build old designs even cheaper. I couldn't agree more.

If a Glock is considered a great step forward, I'm surprised we aren't still driving model T's, albeit with plastic bodies.

[Quartus]

a technically relevant handgun

Now, what would THAT be? Something for snobs to brag about?




1911s still do the job quite well.


THAT'S relevant.


Current popular sidearms show a decided lack of any meaningful improvement since over 100 year old designs.

So does the wheel. Some better rubber, some better rims, but still basically the same thing. <shrug>

Works well enough, I guess.

[seeker_two]

As a side note, JMB did make a lot of other nice designs besides the 1911. (and I'm not talking about the Hi-Power either)

I'd love to see some company make the 1903 (.32ACP) or 1908 (.380) "Hammerless" pistols in a modern guise w/ lightweight frames & shorter barrels...

http://armsbid.com/images/352591colt32acp.jpg

...or maybe a "Vest Pocket" in .25NAA or .32ACP...

http://www.a-human-right.com/vestpocket/_vestpocket3.jpg

(Great photo, Oleg...)

Now those are designs ahead of their time... :D

[Cameron Lamont]

...the 1911 is no longer a technically relevant handgun. - Bruce Layne

I thought that was funny, then it occurred to me that perhaps Mr. Layne was actually being serious.

Is he serious?

I don't think so. It is more likely a post to create a little fire, trolling, I believe is the term. As I don't see how anyone could be that misinformed or ignorant.

Regards,
Cameron

[Tamara]

I don't think so. It is more likely a post to create a little fire, trolling, I believe is the term. As I don't so how anyone could be that misinformed or ignorant.

In all fairness, is it any less trolling than the initial post of this thread? ;)

That's the downside to non brand- or type-specific boards, folks. People here may not like your favorite brand of handgun, and you may think theirs sucks as well.

Good thing they make all different kinds, huh? :)

[seeker_two]

That's the downside to non brand- or type-specific boards, folks. People here may not like your favorite brand of handgun, and you may think theirs sucks as well.

Unless you're on the Bryco/Jennings/Davis/Cobra board....


....then EVERYBODY'S gun sucks.... :D

[Quartus]

There really is such a board?


Have they no SHAME?




:D

[Dave R]

I don't argue that there are more technologically advanced guns that the 1911.

I just want to know what they do BETTER than a 1911.

There are quite a few that are lighter.

I think the 10mm is a better round than the .45acp.

I dont think there are any that have a consistently better trigger than a well-tuned 1911.

There are many that are as accurate as a well-tuned 1911, but I don't think there are many that are MORE accurate.

[action barbi]

http://www.unrealtournament.com/ut2003/weapons.php

Personally I'm waiting for when Epic comes out with one of these badboys,
then we can talk about technically irrelevant.

cheers, ab

[AngusPodgorney]

Browning's designs were improvements on Borchardt's and Luger's

I fail to see the compairison. Browning's autos were nothing like Borchardt's and Luger's. JMB used either a striker or the slide (which he invented) nothing like the cumbersome toggle action.

Ed

[Bruce Layne]

OK. I knew I was blaspheming against the .45 ACP religion, but I wouldn't call it trolling. I believe a spirited discussion is a good thing, as long as everyone keeps it civil.

As I feel I am severely outnumbered here, I won't preach at length by trying to address each and every contrary opinion. Suffice it to say I didn't read anything that made me a 1911 convert. But there was one question that many people posed in one form or another. "What does any modern handgun have that the 1911 does not?" I'll try to address that question. There are some subjective items, and we aren't going to agree on those. For example, I LIKE the trigger pull on my Glock. But I'd be willing to accept that most people, especially those who learned to shoot the 1911 first, would prefer the trigger pull on the 1911. That's particularly true of a 1911 with a good trigger job, but those are a lot more appropriate for competition shooting and are not appropriate for a practical defensive weapon or a concealed carry gun. Here are some objective facts when comparing my 10 mm Glock 20 with the venerable 1911.

1) Higher kinetic energy in each round. Not the ultimate ballistic issue, but certainly a significant factor. Sometimes, you just need more power.

2) 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. Significantly more firepower than any 1911. Yeah, I know you shouldn't need that many shots in most cases, but there are times that definitely aren't "most cases".

3) The Glock is going to be a lot less expensive than a comparable 1911. I think the really nice shooting 1911s are the result of a lot of tuning. The Glock is more of a tool, and the 1911 is more of an art form. Nothing wrong with a 1911, but if you want to buy a pistol that shoots well out of the box, and reliably feeds any ammo you buy or reload for it, it's hard to beat the Glock.

4) While a bit less quantifiable, I think even the 1911 congregation would admit that the Glocks are made of tougher stuff. The polymer frame is impervious to heat, cold, and all but the most aggressive of chemicals. Similarly, the penetrated tenifer treatment on the metal parts is almost as hard as a diamond and very corrosion resistant. Again, the Glocks are more of a tool, while the 1911s are more of an art form. Not better in every way, but certainly better for most real world applications.

5) The Glock mechanism has been repeatedly proven to be very safe. The ONLY way to discharge a Glock is by pulling the trigger.

6) The Glock design is the simplest to operate of all semiautomatics. There is no external safety, no decocker, etc. It's the ultimate point and click interface. It's easier to train people to use a Glock than a 1911, and more importantly, when the adrenalin is pumping it's a lot easier to shoot a Glock. You won't find yourself fumbling with an external safety, or trying to fire a handgun in haste when the safety is engaged.

It should be noted that many military units have adopted the Glock. More US police forces have standardized on the Glock than all other handgun manufacturers combined. The military and police perform rigorous tests to verify a gun's safety, accuracy, reliability, and useability. The Glocks frequently come out on top. In the case that another handgun is chosen, it's often a Beretta, Sig, or H&K, in other words, a modern handgun. There aren't a lot of military or police forces using the 1911. Have any high priests of the Church of 1911 explained why that is? I think it's because the military and police want a safe, accurate, reasonably priced and reliable sidearm, not a finicky tricked out race gun.

Again, I think it's great that people shoot the 1911. It's a fine handgun. I'd prefer something more modern and more practical for a defensive weapon, but that's an individual choice. You're as welcome to your 1911 as I am to my Glock. Shoot what you enjoy. I have a different opinion, but that doesn't make me a troll. To be fair, if a person expressed a pro-1911 position on a Glock forum, he'd probably receive worse treatment than I received here. People tend to be emotionally attached to their guns. That's even true of people who select "practical guns" such as the Glock. Some people appreciate utilitarianism. Other people appreciate tradition, pearl handgrips, or nickel plating.

I don't expect a lot of 1911 fundamentalists to recant their religious beliefs and worship at the alter of Glock. But I hope I at least managed to explain why someone would want something other than the 1911.

[denfoote]

1. And the Lord did come unto His servant, Fritz, in a dream, saying "Behold, I shall send mine angels unto thee, bringing with them plans for another innovation."

2. "Follow these, My teachings, and I shall bring thee to the forfront of handgun design and cause thy name to be spoken with reverence amoungst those who maketh guns for generations to come. This, the work of thy hands shall become more famous than that which I have commanded My servant John, to make."

3. "And you shalt call it "Polizei Pistole" and it shall be good in my sight."

4. "Thou shall construct it according to the Law of Double Action and it shall cause fear and anguish to spread amoungst thine enemies."

5. And Fritz did as the Lord commanded him.


Thus endeth the reading.

[Tamara]

Referring to some 1911 "congregation" that is unaware of the virtues of the Glock is a mite presumptive.

FWIW, I've been around handguns for 18 years, been working in the gun business for 10, and have owned nine Glocks. They were my sole carry pieces from '93 to, oh, around '02 or so. (Save the occasional brief flirtation with a SIG P-228 or HK P7M8.) As of now, I don't carry or own them anymore; they're fine pistols for what they are, but they just don't "do it" for me. If there is a pistol that was every bit as reliable and rugged as your Glocks, that you could shoot faster and more accurately, would you tote it? Especially if you could set it up the way you wanted? Well, that's what happened to me. The only semiautos I own and carry now (other than a few collector's pieces and a special purpose Jetfire) are 1911's. Why? Well, I finally got one that ran like a top and fitted my hand as though it was built just for me. Once I had that experience, well, it made it kind of hard to "buy off the rack," as it were.

Anyhow:

1) Higher kinetic energy in each round.

Than my Delta Elite? Really? ;) (FWIW, despite the massive and seductive power of my mighty 10mm Delta Elite sitting there, I usually just grab one of my .45 1911's and go. Sure, the Delta is more powerful, but a .45 ACP slug has proven itself to be plenty powerful enough. If that's not scandal enough, sometimes I carry my .38 Super, and don't even feel nekkid when doing so!)

2) 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber.

If you can conceal a G20 IWB, more power to you. Me? Well, a slim single-stack 1911 slips into an IWB rig so easily, and a spare mag and backup gun should see me through anything short of an invasion by the heathen Chinee.

3) The Glock is going to be a lot less expensive than a comparable 1911.

I'm torn between saying "A Ford Explorer is going to be a lot less expensive than a comparable Porsche Cayenne," and "Why are we comparing apples and oranges?" ;)

4) While a bit less quantifiable, I think even the 1911 congregation would admit that the Glocks are made of tougher stuff.

Well, I'm not part of the "1911 congregation", but you'll have a hard time selling me on the "plastic is tougher stuff than steel" concept. It might be lighter stuff, and it might be cheaper to shape into a handgun frame, and it may be plenty strong enough to serve as a handgun frame. But tougher? I ain't buyin', sorry.

5) The Glock mechanism has been repeatedly proven to be very safe. The ONLY way to discharge a Glock is by pulling the trigger.
Same with any other quality handgun. Next?

6) The Glock design is the simplest to operate of all semiautomatics.

How is it simpler than a DAO Smith, HK, Beretta, or Ruger? Or a Sigma or XD?

There aren't a lot of military or police forces using the 1911. Have any high priests of the Church of 1911 explained why that is?

True, most units that use the 1911 currently are more "elite" type outfits, like LAPD SWAT, FBI HRT, USMC MEU(SOC), and FBI SWAT, rather than general issue to street cops or line troops. There's also rumours of a NAVSPECWAR 1911 contract in the offing. Granted, these folks probably just selected it for tradition and pretty pearl grips. (Actually, the last time I was referred to as the High Priest(ess) of anything, it was "The High Priestess of the Glock Gestapo" over at GT. Thanks for the memories. ;) )

To be fair, if a person expressed a pro-1911 position on a Glock forum, he'd probably receive worse treatment than I received here.

Well, maybe you haven't noticed, but this isn't a brand specific forum. You'll find 1911 lovers, Glock aficionados, Zed-heads, SIGophiles, HK fanboys, and all the rest here. Me? My first love is S&W wheelguns. If your primary experience of gun boards has been on Brand-Specific Agreeing Party-type boards, it may be a little different.

You may find you enjoy it, though. I did when I first wandered over from GT. :cool:

[Bruce Layne]

Tamara,

You make some very good points.

"...they're fine pistols for what they are, but they just don't 'do it' for me." Exactly. I feel the same way about the 1911s I played with fifteen years ago. No doubt they're much improved now, but I lost interest when I discovered the ugly black plastic guns.

With respect to your Delta Elite, I guess my comment was more intended as 10 mm vs. .45 ACP, as opposed to 1911 style vs. Glock.

The double stack G20 is definitely not as concealable as a single stack. I thought about a G29, packing 10 rounds of 10 mm, but it's a double stack too, so it's the same thickness. It looks a lot smaller, and it sure fits my hand like it's a lot smaller, but in reality it's maybe half an inch shorter and narrower, and the same thickness. If I needed to carry my G20 concealed, I'd get one of the Thunderwear style carriers for inside the front of the pants. I seldom need concealed carry. It's mostly a home defense gun.

As to why I was comparing the price of a Glock to a 1911, I was repeatedly asked what's better about modern handguns, compared to a 1911. Price was one thing that came to mind. Can you buy a good new 1911 ready to shoot for $500-$600 (depending on the dealer markup), or a perfectly serviceable used 1911 for $350-$400? I'm not being a goof, I never looked so I don't really know. I might be wrong on the price issue. But it is important to compare on equal footing. 1911s are more often tweeked to get them accurate and reliable, or am I wrong about that? Admitedly, my 1911 info is a bit dated.

"...plastic is tougher stuff than steel" What I had in mind here was the things that usually damage a gun. Most guns aren't run over with a truck, but a lot of guns rust. The point I was trying (badly) to make was that I believe part of what makes a Glock a better carry pistol is its resistance to corrosion. The polymer and tenifer finish is hard to beat for durability. Even stainless doesn't seem too much better than the tenifer treatment. Granted, we should shoot and clean defensive guns regularly, but we know that some people buy a gun for protection, shoot it once for familiarity and then put it away until needed. I think the Glock would withstand that sort of neglect better than a 1911.

I think you might be writing off the Glock safety mechanism to a larger degree than you should when you say "Same with any other quality handgun." Numerous police departments have done some pretty incredible things when evaluating handguns. Glocks are routinely loaded with a round chambered, then dropped three stories onto concrete, thrown down several flights of metal stairs, run over by police cars, tumbled with sand and gravel in a cement mixer overnight, etc. The three internal safeties absolutely will not allow the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled. Granted, most accidental firings involve the inadvertent pulling of the trigger, but I have a (perhaps mistaken) impression of a tuned 1911 as having something of a hair trigger that would be a lot easier to accidentally pull. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.

"How is it simpler than a DAO Smith, HK, Beretta, or Ruger? Or a Sigma or XD?" Having owned several Glocks, I'm sure you know that the Glocks are all the same from the shooter's perspective. The trigger fires the gun. The magazine release releases the magazine. The slide release releases the slide. That's it. I believe the other manufacturers you listed make some handguns with decockers and external safeties. These aren't horribly complex, but the Glock seems to me to provide the very simplest user interface. Some people like their toys to be complex. There's more reward in mastering a complex device. But I bought a handgun for defense. I want it to be absolutely as simple to operate as possible. All the Glocks have the same bare minimal and intuitive operator interface. As an additional feature, few handguns have as few parts as a Glock. The design is simple and clever. As an engineer, I can state that fewer parts almost always translates into greater reliability. There are simply fewer things to break.

"Well, maybe you haven't noticed, but this isn't a brand specific forum." I noticed that. But I was beginning to think that nobody else had noticed. Your previous post was one of the few that seemed to take a moderate or tolerant position.

Your point about the joy of shooting a 1911 that had been tuned and custom tailored for you is something I can appreciate. Good tools somehow make you feel better about yourself. I suppose my appreciation for the Glock is that it is so close to my ideal handgun, right out of the box. That's rare in a mass produced world. I readily admit that I have very large hands, and most pistols do not fit me well, so conversely most people would not like the fit of the G20.

And before anybody accuses me of being a rabid Glock fan, I'll just admit the obvious. Guilty as charged.

Given that most people still didn't hear what I said before, I'll repeat it. I believe Mr. Browning has made the largest contribution to gun design. He probably contributed more to semiauto pistols by himself than everyone that's come after him in the last 100 years. I have great respect for him and his designs. The only "radical" comment I made was that there had been improvements in the last 100 years. That seems obvious. Many of the improvements to the original 1911 design have been incorporated into other semiautos. A lot of the features I like so much in the Glock design were the result of people tuning their 1911s. Thanks to those who contributed to the state of the art. We all benefit.

PS - I enjoyed your essay on The Battle Of Thermopylae at http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/Tam_Essay.htm

[Cameron Lamont]

Tamara beat me to the punch again... and I see she did it much more eloquently than I.

As I said in my initial post in this thread, I thought that Mr. Layne was simply speaking from a position of ignorance, (please be assured this is no insult, I am ignorant of many things in the world that does not mean I am not intelligent and a nice person, just as I assume Mr. Layne to be).

I guess my comment was more intended as 10 mm vs. .45 ACP, as opposed to 1911 style vs. Glock.
Capacity - many 1911 'style' pistols have the option of relatively higher capacity eg. Para Ordinance 14+1 of .45 Also see Wilson, Kimber etc. Like Tamara I chose to carry a 'single stack' because I like the feel and do not feel under gunned with 8+1 and another 8.

Caliber - I believe 1911 style pistols are available in more calibers than Glocks. .22, 9x19, 9x23, 9x25, .38 Super, .40S&W, 10mm, .45ACP, .45 Super, .50GI, etc. etc.

Can you buy a good new 1911 ready to shoot for $500-$600
Price - Recently (3 weeks) I purchase a brand new Colt Government Model in .45ACP that has been, so far, 100% reliable through 800 factory loads of ball, and 400 rounds of assorted hollow points, it is vastly more accurate than I am (0.5" at 15 yds), all this for the reasonable sum of $549 bare in mind that is less than I paid for either of my two Glocks, no special deal I simply walked into a large chain sporting goods store (Gart Sports) most Glocks in the display were marked higher.

The point I was trying (badly) to make was that I believe part of what makes a Glock a better carry pistol is its resistance to corrosion.
Corrosion - Although I purchased a blued carbon steel model (I actually enjoy the blued model and the extra maintenance that comes with it), I could easily have purchased a stainless steel model... or bought any of the many coatings available, eg. Armor tuff etc. I have a friend that drops his Stainless Colt in the dishwasher to keep it clean...

Is the 1911 design was no longer relevant? As Tamara pointed out, we would not have the 'elite' units using it if it was. Remember many have made the switch to 1911 style pistols very recently, we would also not have the best competition shooters in the world using it. Or the preponderance of renowned firearms trainers advocating it's use. It is interesting to investigate what was behind the design of a 1911 and what was behind the design of a Glock. The 1911 was designed to win fights. I think Rosco Benson said it well...

Rosco S. Benson on rec.guns “Is the 1911 an Outdated Design?”
Of course the 1911 is an outdated design. It came from an era when weapons were designed to win fights, not to avoid product liability lawsuits. It came from an era where it was the norm to learn how your weapon operated and to practice that operation until it became second nature, not to design the piece to the lowest common denominator. It came from an era in which our country tried to supply its fighting men with the best tools possible, unlike today, when our fighting men and women are issued hardware that was adopted because of international deal-making or the fact that the factory is in some well-connected congressman's district. Yes, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the 1911 IS an outdated design....and that's exactly what I love about it.

For a long time I carried an H&K USP and a couple of Glocks and used to make the same comments about 1911s, "too expensive, unreliable, too complicated, all the cops use Glocks." It wasn't until I opened my mind and actually researched the facts and looked past the marketing hype I had been regurgitating about the Glocks etc. I found the I could easily buy a reliable, accurate, durable, handgun that those who actually excelled at shooting advocated.

In a clutch I feel confident that it does not matter which pistol I have in my hand, my USP, Glock, or a .45 Colt, but like Tamara I find that the gun on my hip is now a 1911.

Regards,
Cameron

[Quartus]

OK. I knew I was blaspheming against the .45 ACP religion, but I wouldn't call it trolling. I believe a spirited discussion is a good thing, as long as everyone keeps it civil.

Agreed! I think that's the consensus here.


There are some subjective items, and we aren't going to agree on those. For example, I LIKE the trigger pull on my Glock.

To quote an old Doonsebury line, "You is WEIRD, honey!" :D


But I'd be willing to accept that most people, especially those who learned to shoot the 1911 first, would prefer the trigger pull on the 1911.


Well, yes.


That's particularly true of a 1911 with a good trigger job, but those are a lot more appropriate for competition shooting and are not appropriate for a practical defensive weapon or a concealed carry gun.

Not true, sir! A decent trigger job does not have to equate to unreliability. It does depend on the skill of the smith, of course. There are a lot of idiots out there calling themselves gunsmiths. My current sweetheart breaks clean at around 5 pounds, RELIABLY. I wouldn't want it lighter in a "practical defensive weapon or a concealed carry gun".

1) Higher kinetic energy in each round. Not the ultimate ballistic issue, but certainly a significant factor. Sometimes, you just need more power.

Oh, you sound like James T. Kirk! "Scotty! I need more POWER!!!

:D

OKay, so you need a 10mm's power. 1911s are available in 10mm. That's not a 1911 vs. Glock statement, that's a 10mm vs. 45 ACP statement. And I just might agree with you, if I ever have money again and can try out the 10 for myself.

3) The Glock is going to be a lot less expensive than a comparable 1911. I think the really nice shooting 1911s are the result of a lot of tuning. The Glock is more of a tool, and the 1911 is more of an art form. Nothing wrong with a 1911, but if you want to buy a pistol that shoots well out of the box, and reliably feeds any ammo you buy or reload for it, it's hard to beat the Glock.

My sub $400 Sistema might disagree with you. I haven't had a failure with it yet, though the sights do need to be changed. I let my buddy/gunsmith put adjustables on the back, and they shoot loose. Not good, but not exactly the fault of the 1911 design, either.


4) While a bit less quantifiable, I think even the 1911 congregation would admit that the Glocks are made of tougher stuff. The polymer frame is impervious to heat, cold, and all but the most aggressive of chemicals. Similarly, the penetrated tenifer treatment on the metal parts is almost as hard as a diamond and very corrosion resistant. Again, the Glocks are more of a tool, while the 1911s are more of an art form. Not better in every way, but certainly better for most real world applications.


As it's already been answered as you wrote it, I'll take a shot at what you clarified. True, if you plan on using it in a corrosive environment (salt water comes to mind) or issuing it to idiot masses, you've made a valid point. But for a serious gunowner, I don't think it's an issue.

5) The Glock mechanism has been repeatedly proven to be very safe. The ONLY way to discharge a Glock is by pulling the trigger.

True, you CAN get a 1911 to discharge by doing very stupid things. But I suspect that on balance, there have been more NDs per gun with Glocks than with 1911s. That admirable safety mechanism seems to produce complacency that sends bullets flying. Again, though, only an issue for the idiot masses.

6) The Glock design is the simplest to operate of all semiautomatics. There is no external safety, no decocker, etc. It's the ultimate point and click interface. It's easier to train people to use a Glock than a 1911, and more importantly, when the adrenalin is pumping it's a lot easier to shoot a Glock. You won't find yourself fumbling with an external safety, or trying to fire a handgun in haste when the safety is engaged.

At the risk of being a broken record, idiot masses again...

It should be noted that many military units have adopted the Glock. More US police forces have standardized on the Glock than all other handgun manufacturers combined. The military and police perform rigorous tests to verify a gun's safety, accuracy, reliability, and useability.

Your confidence in the process is refreshing. Naive, but refreshing!


The Glocks frequently come out on top. In the case that another handgun is chosen, it's often a Beretta, Sig, or H&K, in other words, a modern handgun. There aren't a lot of military or police forces using the 1911. Have any high priests of the Church of 1911 explained why that is?

Maybe they've got a different set of criteria than an individual who wants a defensive sidearm? Maybe they've got political pressure? Maybe they've got some pre-conceived ideas?

Maybe all of the above!


I think it's because the military and police want a safe, accurate, reasonably priced and reliable sidearm, not a finicky tricked out race gun.


And HERE is the core of your misunderstanding! Yes, there are certainly a lot of finicky, tricked out race guns out there, and I wouldn't want one as my defensive sidearm. But comparing such interesting toys to a service gun is worse than apples to oranges. And assuming that ALL 1911s are such is very far from the truth. If you want to compare Glocks (a good service gun) with 1911s, compare them to SERIOUS 1911s, not toy 1911s.


Again, I think it's great that people shoot the 1911. It's a fine handgun. I'd prefer something more modern

Here's the part that makes NO sense. Why is NEWER automatically BETTER? "Modern" or "archaic" are irrelevant when it comes to tools. A good old Collins axe is every bit as practical as a new, tricked out titanium and plastic "modern" axe. A Collins with a fiberglass handle is better than either one. Modern is not bad, modern is not good, modern is simply different.

I have a different opinion, but that doesn't make me a troll.

Nope, it don't. We might suggest other things, though. (kidding!)


Some people appreciate utilitarianism.

Yup. That's why I like my Sistema. It works. I don't attend The Church of the Modern Handgun. I don't worship "new".


But I hope I at least managed to explain why someone would want something other than the 1911.

Oh, you didn't need to do that. We all understand about such things. We know that intelligence is not distributed evenly throught the population. ;)

I'm just kidding, of course. Other than your worship of "modern", you make a lot of sense. And we can agree to disagree.

Condescendingly, of course. :D


The bottom line for me is this: For a serious shooter, I don't think there's enough objective difference to make a difference. Confidence in your platform, and how well each of us can perform with it, DOES.

And THAT part is subjective.

[support_six]

If you want the real "Gospel" according to John Moses Browning, just remember he was a member of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon to you) and did a 2 year mission in the late 1800's. Next time those two young men in white shirts and ties ride up to your house on bicycles and try to interest you in a book, just squint your eyes and pretend you are getting it from JMB!

Bruce

[Bruce Layne]

Thanks to everyone for showing some tolerance as I get a 1911 education. And I have learned a lot in the discussion.

I don't think newer is automatically better, but I do believe that even in a market that discourages innovation, products follow an evolutionary path. Newer guns are better and worse. Nobody likes the guns that are worse, so the better guns survive in the market place. Repeat, ad infinitum. So, while newer isn't automatically better in the short term, after a hundred years, that's generally a true statement. My beliefs are still well represented by my previous comments about nobody driving model T automobiles for serious transportation today.

But of course that ignores the fact that the 1911 has been evolving too. I've gotten a sampling of just how broad the 1911 family is. Apparently, the 1911 is difficult to even discuss as a particular type because it encompasses such a wide variety of handguns. And from my recent reading, that's not only true of features, but quality as well. There are apparently 1911s that are very accurate and reliable, as well as those that are not. Nobody in this discussion mentions the latter, but the reliability of of some people's choice in 1911 concealed carry weapons is not well regarded on this other thread I stumbled across tonight:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86987

I'm forming the opinion that my Glock is a good, reliable handgun that I happen to like quite a bit, while the 1911 is a much more diverse class of weapons. There are some excellent examples of finely tuned handguns that fit their owners to a T and are as reliable as any pistol. There are also versions of the 1911 that were never very good, or are the result of botched gunsmithing. So maybe in the simplest terms it's more accurate to say that the 1911 is both better and worse than the Glock, and the Glocks are more consistent.

I'd be willing to bet that the shooters who hang out here and are passionate enough to educate me about the 1911s they like are going to be the ones who are shooting really *nice* 1911s.

The last 1911 I shot was many years ago. When I shook the gun, there was more metal banging sounds than a third world scrap metal dealer, and it stove piped about one round in every (low capacity) magazine. So naturally my impression was not good. Now I know that this was not representative of all 1911s, and in fact, some of the 1911s are extremely sweet. I'll have to see if I can shoot one of those some day.

Thanks again for the education.

PS - Yes, I'm obviously still a Glock fanboy. Religion is a funny thing.

[Handy]

Bruce Layne,

You're not getting picked on because you're a Glock guy in a 1911 world.

You're getting picked on because you seem to think that a hastily designed gun that's main innovation is low production cost is some sort of miraculously different device than the gun it borrows its action from. The two guns are so similar in gross detail and use that making it sound like their on different ends of the spectrum just classifies you as someone who "buys the hype".

It should be bleeding obvious that both guns can be chambered in any popular caliber, treated in any finish and offer light trigger pulls. Both guns are lauded for having (relatively) low bores. Both will take alot of shooting. And both have a wealth of minor faults that you won't find on something as boring as a CZ-75, which is why it is really funny that you think the Glock is some sort of wonder tool. It's a very basic gun that is notable more for what it lacks, then what it has.

[Bruce Layne]

It's a very basic gun that is notable more for what it lacks, then what it has.

If you mean fewer parts usually results in greater reliability, then I agree.

I don't think I'm "buying the hype". I'm a pragmatic engineer. I don't have the breadth of gun experience of most people on this forum, but I do understand good engineering and manufacturing practices.

Glock, the company, has been successful not because they've managed to spin a bunch of hype or somehow deceive a very large percentage of the gun buying public. Their success is based on a solid reputation of reliability and utility. Their pistols shoot well out of the box. You don't have to resort to hoping you get a good one, or spend a lot of time and effort and money having someone tweek one to your liking. A lot of people who use a pistol as a tool appreciate that type of quality. Loving hand-crafted artistry is yet another type of quality that appeals to a different type of person. Both are valid.

I'm beginning to think that for many people, hating Glocks is as much of a religion as loving Glocks is for others.

How about a little tolerance? Can't we all just get along?

Save your vitriolic response for someone who wants to take away your choice of handgun. That isn't me.

[Handy]

My vitrolic was aimed at your pretend victimization as an innocent caught in some sort of Glock vs. 1911 war.

The war doesn't exist, no one cares that you like Glock and neither weapon is at either end of the design spectrum. They are both very basic handguns. One was the engineering masterpiece of its age, the other an exercise in extreme cost reduction.

And there are simpler guns than Glocks, guns that are as tough, yada, yada. I'm just suggesting that before you get into another one of these Glock vs. the world, "engineering masterpiece" speils you realize that your gun is just one of very many reasonable choices. There is nothing obvious or in fine detail that makes it "better".


In specific, you are big on the gun's simplicity. Great. The Glock has 30 some parts, including a trigger spring which has a tendency to break pretty often (I've seen three). A Beretta 92 has something like 60 parts, yet is one of the most reliable guns made - no small parts crapping out in tens of thousands of rounds. So which one is "better"? (Hint - neither.)

It's just another choice, that's all. Don't make it into something it is not.

[seeker_two]

An important couple of questions to consider...

Is there anything a quality 1911 CAN'T do that a Glock/Beretta/H&K/SIG/Ruger pistol CAN?

Also, would you speak as highly of "Glock perfection" if the same basic design had been copied by other manufacturers of varing quality & "improvements" as the 1911?


Any gun will do if YOU will do... :cool:

[Quartus]

Handy, CHILL! Some of us are having a reasonable discussion.


I'm forming the opinion that my Glock is a good, reliable handgun that I happen to like quite a bit, while the 1911 is a much more diverse class of weapons. There are some excellent examples of finely tuned handguns that fit their owners to a T and are as reliable as any pistol. There are also versions of the 1911 that were never very good, or are the result of botched gunsmithing. So maybe in the simplest terms it's more accurate to say that the 1911 is both better and worse than the Glock, and the Glocks are more consistent.

I'm forming the opinion that you are not a hopeless case! :D


I agree - for the most part, a Glock is a Glock is a Glock. You just can't say that about 1911s anymore.

When reading opinions about 1911s, remember that, for many people, their opinon of the platform was formed from experiences in the Army, with weapons that had experienced DECADES of misuse and abuse. They got LOUSY training, fired a qualification course or two, and they are now EXPERTS on the subject. :rolleyes:

For some others, their opinions have been formed by their experience with tempermental race guns used in competition where nobody's life is on the line.

For too many more, their opinions come second and third and fourth hand from the two sources given above. :rolleyes:



I'd be willing to bet that the shooters who hang out here and are passionate enough to educate me about the 1911s they like are going to be the ones who are shooting really *nice* 1911s.


Well, if by "really *nice*" you mean rock solid reliable, not particularly fancy looking (except for some REALLY nice cobolo grips), has acceptable combat accuracy, and cost me under $400, yes, that would be me. :D


The fact that mine has some history to it is a bonus.

[FirstFreedom]

Hilarious - it could use some tweaking - needs to mention beavertails and front cocking serrations.