PDA

View Full Version : 1911 fans what do you think of this article.


Axion
September 6, 2007, 01:23 AM
Here is an article written by the well respected 1911 builder, Hilton Yam, that I think says a lot in the ongoing debate of 1911 vs. everything else. http://www.10-8performance.com/id8.html

Lastly, if you are a diehard 1911 aficionado, you should be ready to accept that you could buy two to four of any other modern service pistol for the price of one 1911 that is good to go. You will not find any true bargains, nor should you be looking for one when your safety or that of your men is on the line.

This is a very interesting quote to me because it says a lot in very few words.

1) It says that for any department, be it military or police, the cost of outfitting their men and women with 1911's is going to be 2 to 4 times higher then outfitting them with a more modern gun design. This is something to think about for all the people who say that the military should go back to the 1911.

2) It also suggests (and he goes into this more later) that a 1911 really needs some custom smithing to be at 100% reliability wise. This is simply not needed with other guns like the ubiquitous Glock, H&K or Sig competitors which are reliable out of the box.

All and all I'm not trying to bash the 1911, I like them and intend to own a custom 1911 some day when I'm all done with school. My point is more that maybe all the people who consider the 1911 God's gift to fun enthusiast and the solution to all problems might need to step back and admit that there have been developments in the firearm design since 1911 that make modern gun designs if not more reliable, reliable with less time and money into them.

ActivShootr
September 6, 2007, 01:32 AM
Some good truth to the article. Alot of personal opinion too. IMO bottom line is; if you like 1911's, get one. If you don't, get something else. If I were issued one by an employer, I would care for, train with, and use it to the best of my ability. Same goes if I were issued a rubber hammer.

RsqVet
September 6, 2007, 01:41 AM
Keep in mind this is written by a man who spends time and earns money wrenching on 1911's.

That being said, yeah if we talk about price in a new unit of mesure, say the glock then a sig P series service pistol or HK probibly works out to about 1.5 glocks at department pricing and a decent 1911 2 to 2.5 glocks, again when we talk department pricing.

The 4 times another service pistol is going to be for some loaded 1911 that you probibly don't ened or want.

My personal opinion of the 1911 marked is good servicable 1911's start around 800-1200 bucks S+W tops my list when I talk this price range, others will disagree, Sig could be on it if they could get their stuff together..., but for my money I'll go more to get a Baer or Brown. Any of these guns unless you get a lemon will be reliable and servicable without need of much smithing though those who made money for years sellign reliability packages may beg to differ... best thing to do is spend the tiem putting 5k through the gun first... then pay to have any percived problems fixed... if you find any.... and you will be a better shot for it.

All of that being said to me it's a who cares sort of point... we know that some gov goes to the lowest qualified bidder... glock or others will ablways win this... at the same tiem if the troops want or need it and it's not outlanisly expensive (and in my world good pistols under 2k are NOT), theny why the heck not?

Remember the day when cops carried revolvers and one might go a 20 year career with the same gun? Now some departmetns seem to be on the treadmill of diffirent calibers, adminstrators that want a diffirent safety ro standardization or what not etc.... that's where significant expense comes in when you start trading in guns, buying new mags and leather and traing the troops... A 2k gun looks mighty reasonable if you figure it over a 20 year career.... yeah it will always be more than a glock which will also go 20 years I'm sure, but if it;s what you shoot well and is reliable who cares?

nate45
September 6, 2007, 01:48 AM
The 1911 is an aficionado's weapon, and still has a place in the modern arsenal for those who are dedicated to it. With proper setup and maintenance, the 1911 can serve you like no other weapon.

However, take a look at the history of unit issue service 1911s – LAPD SWAT, USSOCOM, USMC Det-1, USMC MEUSOC, FBI HRT, FBI SWAT, and let’s not forget over 95 years with all the branches of the U.S. military

The article is totally an in favor of the 1911 it's just saying it is not a weapon for donks or one that can be skimped on it is for the elite.

Axion
September 6, 2007, 03:22 AM
I'm fully aware that the article is in favour of the 1911. I wouldn't waste my time talking about an article written to bash the 1911.

Double Naught Spy
September 6, 2007, 07:37 AM
And yet the favorable article is also saying that the 1911 is a poor value.

The notion that the 1911 needs smithing to be 100% reliable is a bit of garbage. As Rsqvet pointed out, Yam makes his living doing just that, working on 1911s. Promoting the notion that 1911s won't work reliably without smithing helps his business and keeps the idea alive. People will believe the statement as a hard and true fact simply because it was uttered by a respected gunsmith, but it isn't a fact. It is true in some cases, but definitely not all cases.

auto45
September 6, 2007, 08:03 AM
As a 1911 "luver", I think much of the article is true.

Some points have not been my experience, like 5,000 rounds for an extractor, but!!

There is no doubt that a 1911 will cost at least 2 times the "modern" gun for "serious work". I don't think there's anyway around that.

There's no "incentive" for a manufacturer to make design changes for modern production of the 1911...no one is going to place an order for 10,000-50,000 1911s. SA triggers are "out" except for the very "few" that use them.

RickB
September 6, 2007, 11:21 AM
Like a lot of things in life, you might have to pay more, and accept some compromises, to get better performance. Do you want a Porsche, or a Scion? Sure, the latter is cheaper, probably more "reliable", and costs less to service, but is it really a replacement? I certainly wouldn't trade my custom 1911 for a Glock, but I can also see why a city wouldn't shell out $1500 each for guns to equip their police force.

sholling
September 6, 2007, 02:18 PM
nate45
The 1911 is an aficionado's weapon, and still has a place in the modern arsenal for those who are dedicated to it. With proper setup and maintenance, the 1911 can serve you like no other weapon.

However, take a look at the history of unit issue service 1911s – LAPD SWAT, USSOCOM, USMC Det-1, USMC MEUSOC, FBI HRT, FBI SWAT, and let’s not forget over 95 years with all the branches of the U.S. military

The article is totally an in favor of the 1911 it's just saying it is not a weapon for donks or one that can be skimped on it is for the elite.

I have to whole heartedly agree with these statements. The 1911 is an aficionado's weapon. To me it's an outstanding choice for those willing to put the time into learning their weapon and the money into buying a quality product. The slim profile, the way it fits the hand and the smooth, crisp single action trigger make for an ideal target/SD pistol for those willing to take the time to master it. That same silky trigger and high price make it a less than ideal SD choice for those unwilling or unable to invest the time and money. It's like comparing a fine samurai sword to a medieval battleaxe. Anybody can hack away with either of them. But a true artist can wring so much more from a fine Katana, while the less practiced are just a whole lot better off with an axe.

RJM
September 6, 2007, 02:51 PM
My SA 1911 GI champion has been 100% reliable and has not had a lick of custom work done to it. But saying that, you can't deny that there are other cheaper and higher capacity weapons available for LEOs, military or even self-defense. A G30 holds more rounds, doesn't have a user operated safety to get in the way and is smaller than my 1911. It may be a better firearm for somebody looking for a carry gun. My 1911 is a shooter for the range and it has been great.

STAGE 2
September 6, 2007, 03:43 PM
A 1911 made to propper specs will be just as reliable as any glock. Its yokels in this gentlemans profession that have created the problem. Of course, as already stated, its to his benefit to propogate the myth that 1911's always need tweaking.

MythBuster
September 6, 2007, 05:12 PM
Very few 1911's will be as reliable as a Glock in very bad conditions and without lube.

Sorry but that is reality.

Jim Watson
September 6, 2007, 05:23 PM
It strikes me as strange that the 21st century 1911 is an "afficianado's" weapon when in the early 20th century it was adopted for general issue to soldiers recruited off farm field and factory floor and who were doing well to have a highschool education. Not just officers, Gen. Pershing wanted everybody to have a sidearm; the reason they bought so many revolvers in 1917 was because Colt, Springfield and Remington could not build enough autos.

MythBuster
September 6, 2007, 05:33 PM
Perhaps because it takes an "afficianado" to pay $2,000 for a carry gun that will not do anything a modern design $500 gun will not do in the real world.

RJM
September 6, 2007, 05:38 PM
Most guns will go bang and most will be fairly accurate. What the 1911 has is a very good trigger. IMHO, comparing a 1911 or any metal framed pistol to a plastic pistol is a ridiculous comparison.

orionengnr
September 6, 2007, 06:07 PM
Gee, I've owned about a dozen 1911s over the last 25 years. Priciest one was an $800 Kimber, and actually, I've paid 1/3 to 1/4 that for several of them.

Colt, Kimber, Springfield, Para, Daly. Had minor problems with a few, but extractor tweaking or magazine replacement took care of just about everything.

Sorry, my experience does not parallel the hypothesis in the OP.

Several others have pointed out the obvious conflict of interest inherent in the statement attributed to the "expert gunsmith" who benefits directly from convincing you to send your 1911 to him...

BigJimP
September 6, 2007, 06:41 PM
It's an interesting article - although I don't agree with all of it, I do agree that a 1911 platform can be built, and maintained properly, to perform in a duty environment. I don't mind a blued gun but I prefer an all stainless gun - and if it scratches, or wears from holster, I'll deal with it. Is a 1911 primarily for an "afficianado" - maybe, but so what. Should a 1911 be a "1st gun" for a new shooter / or for a new officer for a duty gun ...I don't know. But it is true that Glock and others are a lot less money ......and a young officer may have to give up his gun if fired / and he may need a backup and if that's all he can afford / then he should buy what he can afford ( if the dept doesn't buy them for them ).

For me, as a civilian, I carry what I want - and shoot what I want. What I don't want is a Glock or any othe stryker type gun, or sloppy triggers or poly frames ......but that's my choice. Personally I think Wilson Combat makes some of the finest and most reliable 1911's out there - and yes, at a premium price - but I can afford it, and it's what I choose to carry. If I thought a Springfield or Colt were better weapons, I'd buy one and carry one. I own a few Kimbers - some high end guns out of their custom shop - like the Gold Combat Stainless II that's a $ 1600 gun in .45 ACP but before I'd carry one of them, I'd send it to Wilson to have it thoroughly gone thru and cleaned up/trigger, etc. Is Kimber a terrible gun - no, is it as good as a Wilson, no, not in my opinion.

If I thought a Glock was a better weapon, I'd buy one. But the triggers alone on the Glocks keep me from owning one / and I don't like poly frame guns ( from Wilson, Sig or Glock ... not my style). When I feel like carrying a DA gun, I carry a SIG 226 all stainless in .40 or 9mm (depending on my mood) and I think it is also a fine weapon. For me it comes down to confidence / I carry what I have confidence in / what I want to carry - with no reservations - and 90% of the time it's a 1911 from Wilson Combat. But its a free country - and even though I don't like Glocks and many other guns for that matter - some of the guys that shoot them all the time, get used to the reset and feel of the triggers - shoot them very well. I congratulate them - and we move on - each with our own preference. There isn't a clear #1 choice, in my view, it comes down to what you want, what you can afford and what you like to practice with.

SCREAMIII2006
September 6, 2007, 07:02 PM
Very few 1911's will be as reliable as a Glock in very bad conditions and without lube.

Sorry but that is reality.

Plus you can afford 2-3 times glock for the price of one 1911.

Gee, I've owned about a dozen 1911s over the last 25 years. Priciest one was an $800 Kimber, and actually, I've paid 1/3 to 1/4 that for several of them.

Okay either you work at a gunshop/pawnshop or practically live there.
I've been looking for 1911's since the late 80's and even back then they were 500+.
Don't you think if 1911's were cheaper people would buy them more than a modern .45s?
And if they shot flawlessly as my sig 220 out of the box[$680] more people would buy them?
These guns have one undeniable major drawback: old design that perpetuates aftermarket sales

Its just like a theme park,after you get off the ride,your in a store.

This is why I have chosen not to get one,I don't want to spend $500-1000 and then almost that much to make it reliable to todays standards.

A 1911 made to propper specs will be just as reliable as any glock. Its yokels in this gentlemans profession that have created the problem. Of course, as already stated, its to his benefit to propogate the myth that 1911's always need tweaking.

Ok then, if the gun is made to such high standards,why do 1911 owners insist on having so much work done.If you put a post up right now that said:" Just got a brand x 1911 what should I do first?" it would have twenty posts before the next day at least. Is it a myth or just a keeping up with the jones that keep the gunsmiths busy?

glockopop
September 6, 2007, 07:18 PM
Ok then, if the gun is made to such high standards,why do 1911 owners insist on having so much work done.If you put a post up right now that said:" Just got a brand x 1911 what should I do first?" it would have twenty posts before the next day at least. Is it a myth or just a keeping up with the jones that keep the gunsmiths busy?

Ask yourself this: How many different configurations of 1911s are there?
How many different configurations of SIG 226s are there?

The 1911 can be set up in different ways to perform different tasks. It doesn't have anything to do with inherent reliability or lack thereof. A 1911 set up for 50-yard bullseye competition will be different from a 1911 set up for IPSC competition, and one set up for PPC competition will be even more different. A 1911 issued to a military force will be set up differently than all of these.

Most pistols are primarily service pistols, which is why they are usually better as service pistols than 1911s in terms of ease of use, maintenance, and cost. The 1911 has been refined and specialized for different uses for nearly 100 years.

EIGHTYDUECE
September 6, 2007, 07:27 PM
Most folks tinker with their 1911s because they like too rather than because they have too.

I bought my first 1911 (Colt1991A1) back in 1996 and immediately sent it to a smith to have it look like those cool pistols in the handgun magazines. I added a beavertail that I did not need, a Trigger job (that is nice but was not needed), Novak sites (to look like the pistols in the magazines) I did not need, and ambi safety that I did not have to have.

I did not have to have any work done in the reliability department, it has been as reliable as my Sigs, Berettas, and H&Ks.

Looking back, I wish I would have left it stock. The second 1911A1 I bought was a Springfield G.I. model fullsize if it shot great as is. In the future I will not buy wiz bang featured 1911s. I plan on buying a Springfield Armory mil-spec in the near future.

1911s don't need those extra parts IMO

If you buy a 1911 base model from a good company, you should not have to have any work done on it.

auto45
September 6, 2007, 08:53 PM
Very few 1911's will be as reliable as a Glock in very bad conditions and without lube.

Sorry but that is reality.

Really, what armies use the Glock now that proves that...Austrian?

Perhaps because it takes an "afficianado" to pay $2,000 for a carry gun

Very few carry a $2,000 1911...they don't sell many!!

This is why I have chosen not to get one,I don't want to spend $500-1000 and then almost that much to make it reliable to todays standards.


Parroting Internet nonsense, that's like saying Glocks Kaboom all the time!

Don't you think if 1911's were cheaper people would buy them more than a modern .45s?


What "modern" 45 outsells the 1911? I doubt all the modern 45's combined outsell 1911s.

Ok then, if the gun is made to such high standards,why do 1911 owners insist on having so much work done.

It's "estimated" there are about 100,000- 125,000 1911s sold each year. How many do you really think get worked on?

RevolverLover
September 6, 2007, 09:07 PM
Really, what armies use the Glock now that proves that...Austrian?


Norway and Israel use Glocks. I'm sure there are quite a few others.

HammerBite
September 6, 2007, 09:19 PM
I own three 1911-pattern guns, made by Colt. I have never had a malfunction of any kind. The only one to see a gunsmith was tightened up to be my competition hardball gun. The three guns together have run a total of 200,000+ rounds.

This doesn't really prove anything, but that has been my experience.

STAGE 2
September 6, 2007, 11:54 PM
Very few 1911's will be as reliable as a Glock in very bad conditions and without lube.

Sorry but that is reality.

And thats probably because very few 1911's are made to proper specs. Give me a proper 1911 and it will run just as good and as long as any glock. Gaston doesn't have any magic pixy dust sprinkled on his pistols.


Plus you can afford 2-3 times glock for the price of one 1911.

But I can get a springfield GI or milspec cheaper than a glock so I guess this doesn't square either.

These guns have one undeniable major drawback: old design that perpetuates aftermarket sales

If the design works (and there is no denying it does since its still the most popular auto almost a century after its creation) when what does it matter how old it is.

The combustion engine is older than the 1911, but you don't see people whining about it.

RevolverLover
September 6, 2007, 11:56 PM
But I can get a springfield GI or milspec cheaper than a glock so I guess this doesn't square either.


From where?

IanS
September 7, 2007, 12:09 AM
Again, another thread that deteriorates into a 1911 vs. Glock debate?!:confused:

Everyone from Hilton Yam, Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn, Bill Wilson, Chuck Taylor, Clint Smith, to the instructors at Gunsite (Jeff Cooper's school) all like and shoot Glocks and other similar Glock type pistols (XD/M&P) and extol the virtues of said pistols.

There will always be people who are ignorant about why Glocks and 1911's are popular with the best pistol shooters in the world. They will always want to project the worst stereotypes about them and attack other's choices. Maybe they're trying to justify their own choices. Why are both the 1911 and Glock the two most popular pistols in the U.S.? Not just with newbies who wanted one after seeing it on TV but also the best and most influential practitioners of defensive pistolcraft? Are all these 1911 and Glock people smoking crack? If they can't find out how and why their 1911 doesn't run or if they can't figure out why they can't shoot a Glock very well, that's their problem.:barf: Maybe these doubters will one day see that both Glocks and 1911's are worthy of their serious consideration and truly understand the merits of both....if they will ever be serious about approaching these pistols in an honest and sober manner that is.

sholling
September 7, 2007, 12:38 AM
Again, another thread that deteriorates into a 1911 vs. Glock debate?!I suspect that it's a deep seated insecurity of some sort. There always seems to be a small minority of Glock owners that must always thread crap a 1911 discussion. They simply cannot help themselves. Hopefully we can all get beyond that and begin respecting each other's choices. Glocks are perfectly fine weapons. They aren't for me but that's more a matter of personal taste and ergonomics (they don't fit me) than anything else. If I were a LEO or solder I would find a S&W M&P on my hip a great comfort. I'm neither but I respect the choice their owners made. We'll all be better off when we can all respect that there is no one universally best handgun for every situation or owner and start respecting that each other's choices are just that - their choices.

sholling
September 7, 2007, 01:49 AM
But I can get a springfield GI or milspec cheaper than a glock so I guess this
doesn't square either.
From where? I don't know about cheaper but you can get close. I recently saw a SA milspec for $499 new locally but it didn't last long. For reference purposes I checked Bud's and they have the commander sized (4") Springfield GI Champ for $476. And the 5" milspec for $589. Their price for the 4.6" Glock 21 is $536. I'd about call it a wash. Now back to 1911s.:cool:

STAGE 2
September 7, 2007, 02:08 AM
From where?

Oh pretty much anywhere. The standard GI runs anywhere from 450-475. The milspec is a bit more. Glocks are about $100 more in my area.

RevolverLover
September 7, 2007, 02:42 AM
Oh pretty much anywhere. The standard GI runs anywhere from 450-475. The milspec is a bit more. Glocks are about $100 more in my area.


I was just curious because the prices for the GI and Milspec have gone up quite a bit in my area and seem to be scarce lately. They are usually more than Glocks. The standard non-LEO pricing in my are is $550.

nate45
September 7, 2007, 02:44 AM
But a true artist can wring so much more from a fine Katana, while the less practiced are just a whole lot better off with an axe.

When I was a young man my two main carry pistols were a S&W 4in Model 66 and a 4in Model 29.

I thought I was good with a revolver (in fact I was and still am) and pistols in general.

Until the day I met a man who was an expert with the 1911.

To make a long story short one day we went to the range and set up a IPSC target up at 5yds.

He had a timer and I had never drawn and fired against the clock.

I shot first.

At the sound of the timer I drew my Mod 66 and fired six full magnum 125 grain JHP's into the A-Zone in 3.27 seconds.

He remarked "That was pretty good" and I was overly pleased with my performance.

Then it was his turn.

At the sound of the timer he drew his Pachmayr Combat Special .45 and fired eight into the A-Zone in 1.97 seconds.

When he was done several cases were still falling from the air and you could cover the dead center group with your fist.

This was the fastest, deadliest display of martial art I had ever seen.

Someone would not be any deader than if a master of the katana drew and lopped off their head.

I was hooked and had to learn to use a 1911 in a like manner and I did.

I can shoot my revolvers or my Glocks almost as well as my 1911's, but it just is not the same.

Sure a samurai warrior could hack someone to death with a machete, but it just wouldn't be the same as if he used his katana.

Lurper
September 7, 2007, 02:56 AM
Very few 1911's will be as reliable as a Glock in very bad conditions and without lube.

Sorry but that is reality.
Don't know what you're smoking, but for most of the last century the 1911 was known for reliability. The reputation for not being reliable is a recent occurance probably forwarded by those who cannot shoot a 1911 or those who make their living working on them. The 1911 has stood the reliability test since its inception. So yes, most 1911's will be as reliable as Glocks.

Ask yourself this:
If the 1911 platform is so unreliable, why is it the choice of all the top shooters in the world? Why did it serve our military for so long through many conflicts on every continent in the world?


And if they shot flawlessly as my sig 220 out of the box[$680] more people would buy them?
So you think my Taurus PT1911 with 18,000 rounds through it in 8 months without a single malfunction is less reliable than your Sig? I'll put that 1911 up against any gun. Including the ones Springfield built for me when I shot for Team Springfield. If they didn't shoot flawlessly, how come they hold so many records for accuracy?

These guns have one undeniable major drawback: old design that perpetuates aftermarket sales
I guess it depends on perspective. I would more accurately call it a proven design with the flexibility to be modified to match mission requirements. That's why the work that is done is called "customization" not repair. There is a big difference. Very few pistols can be modified to the extent that the 1911 can.

Rob96
September 7, 2007, 04:28 AM
Keep in mind this is written by a man who spends time and earns money wrenching on 1911's.



As a full time SWAT cop, he is not really earning money "wrenching" on 1911's.:rolleyes:

Rinspeed
September 7, 2007, 08:35 AM
Keep in mind this is written by a man who spends time and earns money wrenching on 1911's.




Also keep in mind he is considered by many to be one of the better smiths in the country even though he only does it part time. Also keep in mind he shoots more in a month than most do in a year or two.

MythBuster
September 7, 2007, 09:07 AM
The 1911 was the issue sidearm of the US military. The combat troops carried them because they had to.

No matter what exists in your imagination the 1911 was not always 100% reliable in combat conditions.

If the Glock had been put into service in 1911 and carried during two world wars, Korea and Nam it would have served just as well and most likely better because of it's much better finish.

nate45
September 7, 2007, 09:51 AM
"The police establishment is now properly devoted to the Glock, and this seems to be a good choice. The Glock is a difficult piece to shoot well, and its safety problem has been solved by issuing it with a trigger that only a gorilla would love, but it has been generally admitted that the police today cannot be trained to shoot well - not so much because of time and ammunition expenditures, but because of motivation. A man will do well only at things he enjoys doing, and today's police departments are reluctant to hire a recruit who enjoys shooting. Thus the Glock's "shootability" is irrelevant. The piece is relatively cheap, it is usually reliable, and the company's service policies are outstanding."
- Jeff Cooper, Cooper Commentaries, Volume V, Number 11.

Glock vs 1911
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/other/Glock_vs_1911.htm

SCREAMIII2006
September 7, 2007, 10:04 AM
The 1911 was the issue sidearm of the US military. The combat troops carried them because they had to.

No matter what exists in your imagination the 1911 was not always 100% reliable in combat conditions.

If the Glock had been put into service in 1911 and carried during two world wars, Korea and Nam it would have served just as well and most likely better because of it's much better finish.

Now you've gone over the line mythbuster,the hive has been disturbed!!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Rinspeed
September 7, 2007, 10:09 AM
If the Glock had been put into service in 1911 and carried during two world wars, Korea and Nam it would have served just as well and most likely better because of it's much better finish.



If the Glock would work as well or better why is it that almost no military units with any credibility are using it today.

RevolverLover
September 7, 2007, 10:15 AM
"The police establishment is now properly devoted to the Glock, and this seems to be a good choice. The Glock is a difficult piece to shoot well, and its safety problem has been solved by issuing it with a trigger that only a gorilla would love, but it has been generally admitted that the police today cannot be trained to shoot well - not so much because of time and ammunition expenditures, but because of motivation. A man will do well only at things he enjoys doing, and today's police departments are reluctant to hire a recruit who enjoys shooting. Thus the Glock's "shootability" is irrelevant. The piece is relatively cheap, it is usually reliable, and the company's service policies are outstanding."
- Jeff Cooper, Cooper Commentaries, Volume V, Number 11.


As much as I love reading Cooper's writings, I have to disagree with some of what he has said about Glocks. I believe Glock pistols are not difficult to shoot well and the standard trigger does not require "gorilla" strength to pull it.

RevolverLover
September 7, 2007, 10:17 AM
If the Glock would work as well or better why is it that almost no military units with any credibility are using it today.

Are there any military units other than elite U.S. units that are using 1911's?

buzz_knox
September 7, 2007, 11:00 AM
Todays samurai carry a 1911

Closest man I've ever met to the samurai model is Louis Awerbuck. And he's converting from 1911s to XD 45s.

buzz_knox
September 7, 2007, 11:08 AM
Are there any military units other than elite U.S. units that are using 1911's?

Many of those elite units use Glocks as well as 1911s. It's the user, not the tool.

If the Glock would work as well or better why is it that almost no military units with any credibility are using it today.

Pistols are secondary gear in every nation. Many of them have kept the same pistol since World War II (i.e. Commonwealth nations) or the immediate postwar period (the Makarov in Soviet service, which was only recently retired). The better comparison is police forces, where the pistol is often the primary weapon. In that category, the Glock is the weapon of choice for a disproportionate number of counterterrorism units around the world.

Lurper
September 7, 2007, 11:30 AM
The 1911 was the issue sidearm of the US military. The combat troops carried them because they had to.

No matter what exists in your imagination the 1911 was not always 100% reliable in combat conditions.
You really should stick to facts and if you believe that is a fact, I'd like to see the data to back it up! Say what you want, but the 1911 is still the choice of the top shooters in the world and holds more records than other pistols.

The better comparison is police forces, where the pistol is often the primary weapon. In that category, the Glock is the weapon of choice for a disproportionate number of counterterrorism units around the world.

Department policy often dictates what pistol is used. International agencies would die before they chose an American made pistol and polititcal considerations often play a role in choice of weapons. If you check, you will find many of the best SWAT and CT units use 1911's. The reason they use them is because they are reliable and they can be customized for mission requirements. A better comparison would be to look at what pistol those who shoot for a living chose.

Closest man I've ever met to the samurai model is Louis Awerbuck. And he's converting from 1911s to XD 45s.
Ask him why.

One other thing that is certain is that you will never get a Glock trigger anywhere near as nice as a 1911.

For the record, I think Glocks are fine firearms, but they are not the be all to end all and for professionals the 1911 is still a better choice.

auto45
September 7, 2007, 11:38 AM
No matter what exists in your imagination the 1911 was not always 100% reliable in combat conditions.


I have no doubt they weren't 100% reliable.

Is there any weapon that 100% reliable?

Back to the original question or purpose of this thread, and away from the 1911 versus Glock tired discussions:

My point is more that maybe all the people who consider the 1911 God's gift to fun enthusiast and the solution to all problems might need to step back and admit that there have been developments in the firearm design since 1911 that make modern gun designs if not more reliable, reliable with less time and money into them.

I think most 1911 "shooters" will maintain that there are modern pistols that are as reliable as the 1911 for less money. Debate will come if "more reliable" is used comparing 45 ACP anyway. I don't have the answer for that one...maybe someone does that doesn't have an "axe to grind".
You have to define "reliable/durable" in round counts and what conditions.
Is it firing 1,000 rounds without cleaning? Is that important to you?
Or jamming it full of mud/sand and firing it for a mag.
Most rounds before rebuilds, breakage, etc... all of the above...what!

buzz_knox
September 7, 2007, 11:46 AM
If you check, you will find many of the best SWAT and CT units use 1911's.

No question. I've even got to play with FBI SWAT gear a bit. Strangely enough, the agent I was dealing with (FBI SWAT in PA) preferred his Glock 23 to the SA Pro because the Pro was more tempermental. He carried the Para on raids, though, because that was policy.

Ask him why.

Already have. Capacity, caliber, reliability, weight and trigger were all reasons cited for displacing his Paras for a matched set of the compacts.

Don't get me wrong. I love the 1911. But when I switched from Glock 19s to the 1911 for a course, Louis asked me why I'd done it since I'd given up a lot of ammunition and easy of carry. Since I shoot both equally well, I went back to the 19.

IanS
September 7, 2007, 12:35 PM
No question. I've even got to play with FBI SWAT gear a bit. Strangely enough, the agent I was dealing with (FBI SWAT in PA) preferred his Glock 23 to the SA Pro because the Pro was more tempermental. He carried the Para on raids, though, because that was policy.


Here's BreacherUp! a member of this forum and what he thinks of the Pro

IanS, the 1911 is a nice weapon, particulary the Pro. It certainly has its good and bad.
Good: Single action, 4-4.5 lb trigger, drives tacks, handles the .45 wear and tear, can be customized to meet the needs.
Bad: Can be finicky, 8+1 cap., expensive, requires additional training, not good for maritime and desert ops, magazines and spring maintenance

Obvioulsy, accuracy with the 230 gr GS was paramount. Seems too specialized to me, but what do I know.

Unless you are working the shield or clearing confined spaces, it is the secondary weapon. However, if utilizing it as a primaryfor tubular assaults (i.e planes, trains, buses), driving tacks gives a warm and fuzzy.

I'm not in love with it. It's a weapon, not my kid. I just don't like the bosses to have any say in something they know [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] about. But what do I know, I'm just the point man in the element.


I also met a FBI SWAT member a few years ago. He was shooting his Glock 22 along with his Pro Model and said he preferred the Glock sometimes. He said good things about both though. As far as whether he liked his Glock more than the Pro he didn't get into that. One thing for sure he loved his HK MP10 subgun. BTW, you meant the Pro not a Para? (possibly Les Baer SRP which was made on a Para frame? but I thought that was only issued to FBI HRT?)



Already have. Capacity, caliber, reliability, weight and trigger were all reasons cited for displacing his Paras for a matched set of the compacts.

Don't get me wrong. I love the 1911. But when I switched from Glock 19s to the 1911 for a course, Louis asked me why I'd done it since I'd given up a lot of ammunition and easy of carry. Since I shoot both equally well, I went back to the 19.

Different strokes for different folks and different occassions and temperaments I guess. Same reason why I won't give up shooting 1911's or Glocks.

buzz_knox
September 7, 2007, 01:00 PM
BTW, you meant the Pro not a Para? (possibly Les Baer SRP which was made on a Para frame? but I thought that was only issued to FBI HRT?)


I thought the Paras were long gone due to reliability problems. The one I fondled was the single stack Pro.

Different strokes for different folks and different occassions and temperaments I guess.

That's what makes the world go around and explains why we have so many to choose from and collect. Personally, I really don't care if you give me a Glock, 1911, or Sig. They seem to all shoot and work pretty much the same (i.e. well).

One thing for sure he loved his HK MP10 subgun.

The guy I knew liked his, but preferred his M4. As you say, different strokes.

Rob96
September 7, 2007, 04:10 PM
If the Glock would work as well or better why is it that almost no military units with any credibility are using it today

The military unit which has the credentials of the best rifle and pistol shooters in the world bar none, have switched to the G22. The 1911s are back in the tool box.

SNOWED IN
September 7, 2007, 04:15 PM
Police departments select weapons partly for price and partly for potential for lawsuits. I know NYPD stated they went Glock because at the time, they ran 38 revolvers and the transition to the double-action-like trigger was an easy transition. Unless I miss my guess, if Glock went single action and changed nothing else, line police depts would not buy. The lawyers will not allow it. I don't think cold analysis by firearms experts is the main factor in such a purchase.

I own and like a Glock 17, SIG 226 as well as 2 Colt 1911s. I don't recall an unjustified (outsized reloads or springing experiments) stoppage in any. My new Colt 1991 has a stainless barrel and a trigger so nice that it is better than smithed triggers from the past. It was cheaper than my SIG and the SIG was a factory reman.

The 1911 has that butter trigger and is easier to hold aligned in the act of firing. It is magnificent and getting even greasier. This is the primary reason that so far, it remains my favorite. In addition, if you want to make a racer out of it-it's easy.

Honestly, I enjoy the never ending circle-of-life when Sig or Glock fans opose 1911 guys and Vs-vs. This is what open discussion forums are for. When I buy anything including cars and trucks, computers, guns or anything else, I log on to the appropriate forumn and listen to both sides grouse. Often most opinions on both sides need to be discarded. Eventually and old codger on one side or the other will talk to the facts in a calm logical fasion and get to the heart of the matter- "FOR MY PURPOSE this fine product and has served me flawlessly". If he starts off with "10 years ago, I owned a piece of junk" or "it has to be good because such and such a department bought it"- well then it's easy to file that where it belongs.

STAGE 2
September 7, 2007, 04:55 PM
No matter what exists in your imagination the 1911 was not always 100% reliable in combat conditions.

And I've seen plenty of glocks fail and some explode. Whats your point?

MythBuster
September 7, 2007, 05:13 PM
I have seen more 1911's fail and explode than Glocks. What is your point.

MythBuster
September 7, 2007, 05:36 PM
If one is going to base their choice of carry gun by how long it was kept in military service there is only ONE choice.

It would have to be a flintlock. The flintlock served the armies of the entire world for a bit over 200 years before a better design took over.

The 1903 Springfield and the P-17 Enfield along with the 1911 were the best weapons the US had in WW-I. The Garand and the 1911 won WW-II.

That does not mean there are not better designs today.

Tom2
September 7, 2007, 07:15 PM
Seems to me that basic 1911 prices are on par for a standard price of a Glock or even less in some few cases. Have had 1911's with heavy triggers and crappy accuracy, but never had problems with them feeding and firing. Exept my first SPFLD in 86, it had a bad mag, but you could not even load the thing to fire it. Metalform mags-100% bang. Proper ammo and it will fire off every time. May mean ball in some older guns but still it works. Bad ammo and mags will trash any auto pistol. My Colt is not tricked out and it is as reliable as any other new auto pistol can claim to be.

nate45
September 7, 2007, 07:27 PM
I have seen more 1911's fail and explode than Glocks.

Oh you have have you.

Exactly how many have you seen "fail and explode"?

Heres how many Glocks and 1911's put together I'll bet you've seen "fail and explode" Zero

IanS
September 7, 2007, 07:27 PM
If one is going to base their choice of carry gun by how long it was kept in military service there is only ONE choice.

It would have to be a flintlock. The flintlock served the armies of the entire world for a bit over 200 years before a better design took over.

The 1903 Springfield and the P-17 Enfield along with the 1911 were the best weapons the US had in WW-I. The Garand and the 1911 won WW-II.

That does not mean there are not better designs today.


Better for whom? If it works. It works. Guns have not advanced technologically in the way the tank, the airplane, or ships have advanced in the last century. All small arms today are still low tech devices compared to all the other modern battle implements used today. I doubt the soldiers of WWII or even WWI would be that impressed with the small arms we use today compared to our tanks, aircraft carriers, laser guided missiles/smart bombs, and jet fighters. Pit two equally trained pilots in a P51 Mustang vs. a F/A 18 fighter jet. Who would prevail? Wouldn't technology most likely determine who wins in this case? Now pit two equally trained people armed with a 1911 vs. a Glock (HK whatever). Would it be fair to say the human element would most likely determine what the outcome would be? In other words are pistols today really "better" or do we just have more options?


Why does our military and other military org. around the world continue to use and copy the Browning M2 .50 machine gun? Why are pump shotguns like the Remington 870 still popular? Maybe because they're still effective? The 1911's of today are arguably better or worse than modern pistols of today. With a properly set up 1911 all it practically gives up to a modern Glock is capacity and weight. But then again they had the more compact, lighter, higher capacity BHP back then too. Small arms and esp. handguns are still relatively crude bullet launching devices compared to the guns of the last century. I have a feeling those soldiers of WWII would probably look at our pistols and wonder why they haven't really advanced compared to everything else.

Aww, heck got sucked in again.:barf:

Ocraknife
September 7, 2007, 07:31 PM
I'd love to have a 1911 I like sigs, H&Ks, revolvers and I am trying to like Glocks. Why does there have to be a competition between styles of pistols?

sholling
September 7, 2007, 07:39 PM
I don't know but it's a shame the hecklers won't allow us to enjoy a conversation about our favorite handguns.

IanS
September 7, 2007, 08:41 PM
Combating ignorance can be a 24/7 job. Whether you own a Glock or 1911.

Tip for newbies. Get something more esoteric like a Walther P99, Beretta PX4, CZSP01, or even better a Sphinx if you don't want to hear people dumping their opinions about your pistol. Most likely they don't know much about it and they don't care. I try to ignore it but I'm like a moth to a flame.:o

smallshot
September 7, 2007, 09:05 PM
Oh yeah? Well... my Chevy's faster than your Ford, or is it my Ford's faster than my Chevy or wait... no I got it - when my Ford is clean it'll out run your Chevy if it's dirty... or... oh never mind, I can't get this argument straight. But I bet My dad can beat up your dad.

Timeframe
September 7, 2007, 09:15 PM
I'm going to get sent to my room on this one,BUT,is the real issue here about the military returning to a round that has some real stopping power,and not about the weapon that fires it????????????

STAGE 2
September 8, 2007, 12:04 AM
I have seen more 1911's fail and explode than Glocks. What is your point.

My point is exactly what I said in the beginning. Namely that a 1911 built to proper specs will be just as reliable as a glock.

Glocks fail. Period. 1911's fail. Period. Thats just what happens with man made machines.

That said however, any rattletrap 1911 from years gone by will run just as well as any glock. Like I said, gaston doens't have magic dust.

Put down the kool aid.

sholling
September 8, 2007, 03:14 AM
Thankfully times have changed. Years ago there were lots of pistols that didn't reliably do this or that. And even scarier, a few that went bang when they shouldn't have gone bang. Lot's of brands and designs took heat. Thankfully competition has brought us a lot of choices and forced manufacturers to clean up their act. Today whether you buy a Taurus or a S&W or a Glock or a Colt or Kimber it's a good bet that with the exception of the occasional lemon it's just going to work and work fine. The point about customizers making a darn good living out of popular models is vary valid. It's to be expected that they will trumpet this tweak or that tweak. Just as there are customizers making a darn good living off of tweaking Porches and Corvettes. They sure as heck don't suck right from the factory but there is always a very competitive industry making great even better.

What it boils down to is exactly what smallshot said "my Chevy's faster than your Ford, or is it my Ford's faster than my Chevy or wait..." ;) We each have our own taste in cars, clothes, motorcycles and weapons.

ranburr
September 8, 2007, 02:38 PM
As far as the original posting goes: I agree that Glocks are cheaper to outfit a group with. Especially true if Glock gives away the guns. I don't agree that a 1911 has to have custom work to be reliable. As far as that goes, consider the source.

MythBuster
September 9, 2007, 06:22 PM
"Oh you have have you.

Exactly how many have you seen "fail and explode"?

Heres how many Glocks and 1911's put together I'll bet you've seen "fail and explode" Zero"

You don't have a clue what I have seen. You don't know me. I was shooting and smithing on 1911 pistols most likely long before you were born.

JohnKSa
September 9, 2007, 06:53 PM
Enough of the:

Did too! Did not!

Present the facts and let them speak for themselves.

RJM
September 9, 2007, 08:21 PM
I know what is good for me. The 1911 feels much better than Glocks offerings in .45 for me. I've had a G21 and I now have a SA GI champion that has been 100% reliable. Thats all that matters. I can't see either of them blowing up unless very strong handloads are used.

Cremon
September 10, 2007, 08:27 AM
Present the facts and let them speak for themselves.

I gotta agree with that one.

crankshop1000
September 10, 2007, 08:40 AM
I suggest you take $379 and buy a Rock Island Armory 1911A1. Break it in with a couple of hundred rounds and see what your real life experience responses to the article is. My opinion is that there is a low cost, quality built and reliable 1911 out there. It is so good that we should be required by law to buy one.Truly a great rendition of JB's original combat masterpiece.JMHO-Chuck.

OBIWAN
September 10, 2007, 07:13 PM
"Present the facts and let them speak for themselves"

Fact one....some kids simply cannot play nice

Back on topic...

Not putting words in Hiltons mouth...that man probably knows more about the 1911 than all of us put together.....even the ones that will never admit it:eek:

At the very least credit him with the sense not to arbitrarily run down a weapon that provides at least part of his livelyhood

As someone that tries to listen to people that know more than me....I have paid attention and I believe he comes at this not only as a gunsmith but also as someone who uses weapons hard...and works on weapons that will be used hard

His perspective is MUCH different than someone that thinks they shoot their pistol a lot

I have heard him say that the 1911 is much more dependent on a periodic/preventative maint program than many other platforms especially when they are run hard

He also bases his "opinions" on experience with scores of weapons that see hard use...most of them daily

Not just the 2, 3, 10 pistols he personally owns

Like so many of the "experts" that have posted here:rolleyes:

IanS
September 10, 2007, 07:24 PM
His perspective is MUCH different than someone that thinks they shoot their pistol a lot

I have heard him say that the 1911 is much more dependent on a periodic/preventative maint program than many other platforms especially when they are run hard

He also bases his "opinions" on experience with scores of weapons that see hard use...most of them daily

Not just the 2, 3, 10 pistols he personally owns

Like so many of the "experts" that have posted here

Here, here, Now where's that applause button?

Lurper
September 10, 2007, 11:28 PM
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I'd be willing to bet that I run my guns as hard, as much and as often and have as much experience as a shooter as just about anyone. In my experience, the 1911 has been nothing but reliable from stock Colts to Baer, Wilson, Springfield, Para and even my Taurus. I have never seen an overabundance of problems with 1911's (nor with Glocks necessarily). Part of the problem is that everybody and their brother thinks they are a gunsmith and everybody and their brother thinks they know 1911's. Sadly, neither is true. If the 1911 was so unreliable, why is it still the choice of professional shooters? You can present a sound argument about the cost of customization, but they are just as reliable without most custom work that is done. I ran 500 rounds a day through my race guns and cleaned them once a week. I would never shoot a match with a clean gun - they shoot differently. In the millions of rounds I have fired I have never had a malfunction that I could claim was caused by a dirty gun, I have never seen a 1911 "fail" and the vast majority of malfunctions I have seen were caused by ammo. Shooting the circuit for so many years, I have seen many malfunctions, but none that I can say were caused by the gun or its inherent lack of reliability. Therefore, I have to question the comments from those who claim they have.

quickcanary
September 11, 2007, 04:22 PM
STAGE 2, I agree that anything made by man can and will fail. But I'm not sure I concur with your statement that

any rattletrap 1911 from years gone by will run just as well as any glock.

Gaston might not have magic dust, but you're basically saying that any and all 1911s will run just as well as any Glock, and that's just not so. There are too many accounts of 1911s, before and after "break-in", that have malfunctions of some sort. Some run great out of the box and are perfectly reliable, sure. Am I saying they are all unreliable? No. Am I saying that most are unreliable? No. But at least with a Glock I know it won't be picky with the ammo and I know there is no need to buy expensive aftermarket mags to make the thing feed reliably (as with *some*, not all, 1911s). I am not saying that Glock is better, but I think your statement was a little over the top.

Apparently they DO make 1911-flavored kool aid! ;)

I am not flaming you and respect your opinion, but I just don't think it is 100% correct.

MythBuster
September 11, 2007, 04:32 PM
Let me put it this way. Lets say we went to a few good gunshops and bought every new 1911 they had in stock until we came up with 100 1911 pistols of about every brand.

We also bought 100 new Glocks.

We are going to bet every thing we own in this world on which group of guns are going to be more reliable out of the box with factory carry ammo.

Which ones are you going to bet on? If you bet on the 1911's I am going to wind up with everything you own.

And most of you know that if you have years of experience with both Glocks and 1911 pistols.

MythBuster
September 11, 2007, 04:34 PM
"Apparently they DO make 1911-flavored kool aid!"

They sure do. And it is just as bad and anything the Glock owners have ever drank.

IanS
September 11, 2007, 05:04 PM
Let me put it this way. Lets say we went to a few good gunshops and bought every new 1911 they had in stock until we came up with 100 1911 pistols of about every brand.

We also bought 100 new Glocks.

We are going to bet every thing we own in this world on which group of guns are going to be more reliable out of the box with factory carry ammo.

Which ones are you going to bet on? If you bet on the 1911's I am going to wind up with everything you own.

And most of you know that if you have years of experience with both Glocks and 1911 pistols.


Not only are you off topic in this thread and trying to pick a fight with 1911 Kool Aid drinkers but you're stating something that is already well known and admitted among 1911 enthusiasts. Hilton Yam sprinkles various caveats about the 1911 in his article. Does he sound like someone who wants everyone to carry 1911's? :confused: But you also omit a very important fact. For many, the 1911 is more rewarding to shoot than a Glock and not the hassle many make it out to be.
Everyone from Larry Vickers to Yam to Hackathorn to your fellow members in this forum already know this. The 1911 is not for everyone. Because "EVERYONE" can range from people who take good care of their gun to dipheads who can't figure out their gun needs lube to run and stick wrong cartridges in their magazines. Someone who already digs the 1911 will more likely enjoy and keep his 1911 running.
To almost every newbie the 1911 is the pistol I'd least likely recommend and the Glock the most likely. If they want a 1911 they can find out on their own.

Paraphrasing two prominent 1911 "gurus":

"We live in a Glock world, everything else is in the periphery" - Larry Vickers (1911 gunsmith)

"If you're gonna treat your gun like a lawnmower get yourself a Glock" - Ken Hackathorn (instructor)

The people who drink the Glock, SIG, 1911, or HK Kool-Aid most likely do not shoot their guns enough and aren't honest with themselves enough to know their guns aren't perfect.

Whatever gun you have, if you can't figure out how to keep it running or get it fixed ditch it. If its running great for you, keep doing what you're doing and don't mess with it. Simple. And if you're the kind of person that is highly susceptible to other people's opinions and have developed fears about the 1911 get a Glock. Please get a Glock. Or Beretta, HK, SIG, whatever.

MythBuster
September 11, 2007, 06:41 PM
I personally don't care about the opinions of anyone. My choice of carry gun comes from my 40+ years of shooting handguns and gunsmithing.

I love the 1911 as much as anyone but I also know their faults.

The gunsmith in question is correct when hew says the 1911 design needs hand fitting during production to make it perfect.

If that were not the case Rock Island would be making $400 1911 that is as good as anything any pro could build.

Sarge
September 11, 2007, 09:00 PM
I think you have to look at this in the context of service-grade 1911 vs service-grade Glock- which is pretty much all of them. You also have to consider the following, which pertains to basic stock guns without all the glitz.

Only Glock is making Glocks.

Everybody and their three-legged dog is making 1911s.

The vast majority of 1911s are being marketed for the sole purpose of cashing in on the ‘1911 craze’, which has always been strong- but has grown even stronger with the patriotism born of the last six years.

What’s missing from the ‘1911 Equation’ is not high-dollar gunsmiths and training gurus, pontificating about how the gun requires expensive hand-fitting and special care to make it ‘duty worthy.’ This is fertilizer, regardless of who said it.

What’s missing from the ‘1911 Equation’ is the Ordnance Department, holding contractors to stringent requirements regarding materials and heat treatment, especially for extractors, ejectors barrels and the like; and then testing the finished product and rejecting those batches which do not meet the specification- and withholding payment for same.

There was never anything wrong with the design, and to suggest that it requires special treatment to get it to run well under adverse conditions is absurd. The 1911s original barrel throat was designed around hardball, and it works very well with that. The advent of the ‘wadcutter throat’ over a half-century ago resolved any issues about the gun feeding other bullet types. Steady improvements in magazines and hollow-point ammunition that mimics the hardball profile, have only improved its reliability. The general lowering of ejection ports hasn’t hurt any either.

So why won’t Johnny’s 1911 run?

Mostly because many producers of 1911s have either never heard of the Kuhnhausen Manual, or they have patently ignored it. They leave sharp edges where the frame ramp meets the chamber, offering the top round a nice place to high-center. They bed barrels without the necessary clearance between the frame and barrel ramps, so bullets catch on them & hang up. They install an over-length ‘match’ barrel link, often compounding that very problem.

Then they cheap out on small parts, casting or MIM’ing them, and they turn out brittle and undersized in the process. This practically guarantees that if the gun runs at all, it won’t run for long. And guess what? When the inevitable occurs and it DON’T run, Johnny is told if he’ll only shoot 500 more rounds through it the gun will magically HEAL itself. Right.

So what is Johnny to do?

Johnny can do what I did, buy a Kuhnhausen Manual and then study it like it was the Bible. He can build/rebuild his own guns for about 30 years, plus all the other cops 1911s that get brought to him for ‘problems’. Or he can just go buy a used, flat black ugly-rollmark Colt 1991A1 for only a little more than he’d pay for a new Glock. He’s probably going to have a gun that is every bit as reliable, will shoot 3.5” at 50 yards with HydraShoks (yes, with the stock bushing) and will run over 3500 rounds of mixed ammo without a malfunction. He can shoot lead in it ‘till the cows come home and never worry.

Mine did, and so did a couple of others I’ve followed pretty closely. One of them we had to rip the ‘improved’ extended slide stop off of, because it was oversize and hanging up on the notch. When these guns are built right and to the blueprint, they are fully as reliable as any pistol ever made. None of them have been tweaked by a high-dollar gunsmith.

Now here’s the kicker- if your $350 cast-frame Rock or Auto Ordnance has an in-spec frame & slide, is assembled per The Manual with decent quality (read BLUEPRINT) small parts- it will run and shoot just as well as the Colts- and for just about as long. I have proven this for myself too many times to doubt it. I just got done doing it with a ‘WWII’ Auto Ordnance, and that gun is still running with anything even resembling in-spec ammo.

The 1911 is no more complicated that the Briggs & Stratton engine on that lawn mower Hackathorn was talking about. And just like that little engine- get the right things in the right places, and it just can’t help but run.

No, you can’t buy a new, ‘finished’ 1911 for what a Glock costs- unless you get lucky. Yes, any 10 Glocks are more likely to run than any 10 off-the-shelf 1911s in that price range. This is not because Glocks are so good; it is because off-the-shelf 1911s in that price range, are frequently ‘so bad’.

Lurper
September 12, 2007, 11:11 AM
We also bought 100 new Glocks.

We are going to bet every thing we own in this world on which group of guns are going to be more reliable out of the box with factory carry ammo.

Which ones are you going to bet on? If you bet on the 1911's I am going to wind up with everything you own.

Here's the problem with your (and other's) argument Myth:
It is based primarily on supposition, heresay and anecdote with a dash of experience sprinkled in. In my experience which is more than 20 years and somewhere between 1 and 3 million rounds (about 85% through 1911's), 1911's have faired as well as Glocks. I don't think anecdotal arguments are real valid, nor are outlyers which is why I don't keep mentioning my Taurus. But, I'll put my Taurus up against any gun at any price for accuracy and reliability. I have put more than 18,000 rounds through it without a single malfunction. It cost me $454.00 last November. I clean it once a month (between 1500-3000 rounds) and trust my life to it as my carry gun. It is also the gun I shoot single stack division with and put on most of the demos and videos I do. While I respect HY's opinion, I beg to differ. For every horror story about 1911's there are thousands of stories of reliability and accuracy.

As Inv said, there are dozens of manufacturers who build 1911's and only one who builds Glocks. Do you really think it would be any different if the same manufacturers built Glock variants? I'm not running down Glocks, they are fine firearms. But the one thing you can't get around is that the 1911 is the choice of the best shooters in the world and holds more records than any other pistol. Not bad for a pistol that is supposedly unreliable and undependable.

MythBuster
September 12, 2007, 02:07 PM
Your Taurus is an exceptional 1911. They are not all like that.

The two I have experience with had major flaws out of the box.

You are more likely to get an unreliable 1911 out of the box than an unreliable Glock out of the box.

And that statement is not
"supposition, heresay and anecdote with a dash of experience sprinkled in"

It is FACT and I think you know it.

Tanzer
September 12, 2007, 02:35 PM
The doorknobs they used in the 19th century work as well as any I've sen today.

sholling
September 12, 2007, 04:51 PM
As I've said before the 1911 is an aficionado's weapon. If it's not your cup of tea then you should go play with your tupperware. Yes the plastic fantastic goes bang but it's a blunt instrument. No finesse what so ever. Bottom line - this thread reminds me of a Toyota Camery owner harping at a Porche 911 owner about value and reliability.

STAGE 2
September 12, 2007, 05:32 PM
There was never anything wrong with the design, and to suggest that it requires special treatment to get it to run well under adverse conditions is absurd.

So why won’t Johnny’s 1911 run?

Mostly because many producers of 1911s have either never heard of the Kuhnhausen Manual, or they have patently ignored it. They leave sharp edges where the frame ramp meets the chamber, offering the top round a nice place to high-center. They bed barrels without the necessary clearance between the frame and barrel ramps, so bullets catch on them & hang up. They install an over-length ‘match’ barrel link, often compounding that very problem.

Then they cheap out on small parts, casting or MIM’ing them, and they turn out brittle and undersized in the process. This practically guarantees that if the gun runs at all, it won’t run for long. And guess what? When the inevitable occurs and it DON’T run, Johnny is told if he’ll only shoot 500 more rounds through it the gun will magically HEAL itself. Right.

So what is Johnny to do?

Johnny can do what I did, buy a Kuhnhausen Manual and then study it like it was the Bible. He can build/rebuild his own guns for about 30 years, plus all the other cops 1911s that get brought to him for ‘problems’. Or he can just go buy a used, flat black ugly-rollmark Colt 1991A1 for only a little more than he’d pay for a new Glock. He’s probably going to have a gun that is every bit as reliable, will shoot 3.5” at 50 yards with HydraShoks (yes, with the stock bushing) and will run over 3500 rounds of mixed ammo without a malfunction. He can shoot lead in it ‘till the cows come home and never worry.

+1001

This is exactly what I was saying. Lots of stuff out on the shelf today ISN'T made to the proper specifications. Hence the need for extreme tweaking and parts replacement.

So as far as the contest between the 1911 and the glock, if the 1911 was proeprly made, I'd say reliability would be a wash. Accuracy however would be an entirely different ballgame.

JohnKSa
September 12, 2007, 11:12 PM
Lots of stuff out on the shelf today ISN'T made to the proper specifications.Lots of guns by different makers + lots of parts by different makers + people (including some manufacturers) building them by buying a slide from here, a barrel from there, a frame from somewhere else...

It's not a recipe for sterling reliability.

BMARM4
September 17, 2007, 05:18 PM
I own and shoot (a lot) the following SA guns:

Springfield 1911-A1 in stainless

Kimber Desert Warrior

Springfield XD in 45

FNH 5.7

Glock 36

The Springfield 1911 is the most accurate .45 and has never failed. The Kimber Desert Warrior is more or less a modernized 1911 in some respects not so in others but shoots about the same with a match grade barrel. The Springfield XD was the cheapest and it "handles" the best. Not the most accurate, but as a PDW nothing beats 14 .45s ready to go. It just feels more natural in your hand. No failure to feed yet. The FNH 5.7 is the most accurate of them all, but it's not a .45. Did I mention it holds 20 rounds, 30 with the extended mag. The Glock is my everyday CCW in my truck. Mainly because of it's size. It shoots ok, but it does fail to feed on occasion. But, in a less than perfect situation weather wise or environment wise it and the XD would probably be my choice. The plastic guns just have more forgiving tolerances.

The things the article is referring to have more to do with knocking off corners and edges so the 1911 doesn't snag and upgrading parts that 90 years of service have shown, eventually do break.

Quite honestly, the fact the gun cost 2 to 4 times more has more to do with the material cost (metal vs. plastic) and the manufacturing cost (working with metal vs. tooling for plastic). That said, I bet anyone here you will not find a vintage Glock or other plastic gun still being used in battle 90 years from now. I doubt very seriously the plastic gun will even be safe to shoot if it even still exist (vintage, not new). And I like plastic guns.