What is the bottom line on 1911 reliability?

[ScotchMan]

I have been on again off again about buying a 1911 for a while now. I want one for all the reasons you can probably predict. I don't want one because I don't want to drop $1000 on a project when it turns out to be unreliable. I have minimal experience with them, so a lot of this is based on Internet research, which as we all know can be worthless. So I turn to you guys who seem to have their shit together more than most of the forums around.

On one hand, I have heard countless people say that production 1911s are reliable out of the box, and the reliability issues come from people messing around with their guns. On the other, I have fired three 1911s as of an hour ago, and all three were unreliable.

I fired a Colt Officer's model which jammed about 15% of the time. I fired a Taurus PT1911 which was similar. And as of today's range trip, I've fired a brand new Sig Scorpion 1911. It was 100% reliable for me over 40 rounds (which were all touching at 7 yards), but jammed for its owner, with two magazines, about 5-8% of the time he fired it. Ejection was very strong, but the next round would get caught up on the feed ramp.

So I don't know if that Sig was the gun, ammo, mags, or shooter. What I do know is that across my relatively small sample, 1911s have a 100% failure rate. I compare that with my history of 0 malfunctions over thousands of rounds across about 10 handguns, primarily HKs, Walthers, Glocks and Berettas. I've never experienced a non-induced handgun malfunction (ok, with the exception of .22s). So have I just been really lucky?

What is the deal? If I go buy a 1911 today, what are the chances I will get a gun that works consistently? I am considering the Springfield Loaded as my first choice. Even though I have other guns to cover all my serious needs, I don't want to drop $800 on a gun that doesn't work reliably, I've got too many guns that work to deal with that.

[JSGlock34]

There are more knowledgeable 1911 guys on this board that I'm sure will weigh in, but to start I'd say the three models you experimented with are not a good baseline to assess 1911 reliability. First of all, conventional wisdom is to stick with 5" models. From a brand perspective, Colt makes the best 1911s out of the three you sampled. Caleb's recent review of the CCG demonstrates that Colt has solid out-of-the-box offerings. But short 1911s have always had spotty reliability, and the 3" Officer's Model is no exception.

Neither the Taurus PT1911 or SIG 1911 would make my list of high quality 1911s. SIG is probably a notch ahead of the Taurus, but the external extractor is questionable.

I own a NM prefix Springfield Loaded PX9109L that I bought for a song and I'm pleased very with the performance. Out of the box it passes the 10-8 Extractor Test, but I found it was picky with magazines (wouldn't lock back on Wilson 47s) until I switched out the slide stop. It has proven a solid base gun for customization and at this point I've upgraded most of the parts. Still, it is a range gun for me. Were I in the market for a production 1911 for carry, I'd probably grab a Colt or a Springfield MC Operator or TRP.

I found the 10-8 article on Choosing a 1911 for duty (http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/Choosing-a-1911-for-Duty-Use.html) use to be a useful starting point.

[David Armstrong]

There are more knowledgeable 1911 guys on this board that I'm sure will weigh in, but to start I'd say the three models you experimented with are not a good baseline to assess 1911 reliability. First of all, conventional wisdom is to stick with 5" models.
I'd suggest they are a fine baseline to start out. A range of manufacturers with varying reputations. You do have a point regarding size, although at this stage of the game a Commander-length gun should be pretty good to go. My take is quite simple...1911s these days are a very hit-or-miss proposition. You get some great guns from less than stellar manufacturers, you get some terrible guns from top-shelf manufacturers, and it is hard to figure out what you are going to get in advance. I've had great 1911s from Springfield and Colt, I've had terrible 1911s from Springfield and Colt. I've got a friend with an Auto Ordnance 1911 that seems to be unstoppable, another friend can't get his to run through a full box of ammo without a glitch. Some folks will tell you about how reliable and accurate their Kimber is, others will tell you how unreliable and/or inaccurate theirs is. Very much a buyer beware sort of thing.

[JeffJ]

That's the real issue with the 1911, people say it like they say Glock or SIG. The thing is that there are so many variables, even within the same manufacturer that you can end up comparing apples and tomatoes. I really think that if you're planning on one for carry, that you should at least have a contingency plan of having it worked over some. You might have great success out of the box, but planning on spending a little money with a good 'smith is probably a good idea.

[ScotchMan]

Thanks for the replies. The Colt was a 3", and I was aware that shrinking the 1911 design increases problems. I didn't choose the guns I've had access to, that's just been the breaks. I did think Sigs were some of the better offerings out there today though for production 1911s. The Scorpion is a 5" model.

I will read that 10-8 article.

[ScotchMan]

That's the real issue with the 1911, people say it like they say Glock or SIG. The thing is that there are so many variables, even within the same manufacturer that you can end up comparing apples and tomatoes. I really think that if you're planning on one for carry, that you should at least have a contingency plan of having it worked over some. You might have great success out of the box, but planning on spending a little money with a good 'smith is probably a good idea.

Yeah I should have specified, I don't intend to carry it. If I get it, and love it, and its reliable, that is not off the table, but I have already-proven primary and backup carries that I have no desire to replace. This would be more of a range gun or possible HD pistol backing up the 870.

[Vinh]

Luck of the draw.

I purchased 20 1911s over the last 10 years. I have kept four of them, but only trust one to watch over my daughter.

[Robinson]

I had one Colt Combat Commander (4.25" gun) that was a custom build and it would misfeed cheap ammo about once every 50 rounds or so. Other than that all the 1911 pattern pistols I've owned have been reliable. I currently have three Colts -- all 5" guns -- and they all run fine. Before that I had a S&W and three Springfield Armory guns and they were very good too. Way back when I had a Kimber that ran great. That doesn't mean it's a given though.

[Alaskapopo]

When built but a good Smith 1911's are as reliable as any modern auto. The down side is labor to build them is expensive and they take a lot more maintenance to keep them reliable as parts wear out, break or go out of spec from use.
Pat

[SecondsCount]

That's the real issue with the 1911, people say it like they say Glock or SIG.

Truth.

The model 1911 has been copied, changed, updated, downgraded, and in some cases improved over the years. A correctly built 1911 can be reliable. Like already stated, if you buy a full size version, your chances of it being reliable are much greater.

If I were to buy a 1911 today, it would probably be a Les Baer Thunder Ranch, Springfield TRP, or a Dan Wesson Valor. The Baer is blued steel while the others are available with different coatings or in stainless that will hold up better if you are going to carry them. The checkering on the TRP can be sharp to some hands.

For something at a little better price point that will give you some room for tweaking or sending off for a reliability package, check out the Springfield Loaded, Desert Eagle G, or a Colt XSE model.

[BLR]

Never mind.

I remember, I learned my lesson before.

[Tamara]

I fired a Colt Officer's model which jammed about 15% of the time. I fired a Taurus PT1911 which was similar. And as of today's range trip, I've fired a brand new Sig Scorpion 1911.

I think I see your problem. ;)

[SecondsCount]

I think I see your problem. ;)

:handclap:

[John Ralston]

When I asked my buddy Jason Burton (one of the best 1911 smiths on the planet) what he would recommend, he said "If you want it to be reliable, it has to be a 5" gun". He didn't say a Commander Length gun couldn't be reliable, but he said 5" all the way. So, for me, that's a good starting point. Then you go with a maker known for reliability...like Springfield...as a base line. Then you listen to the advice given by many 1911 experts...it's not a gun for those that can't tweak and maintain it on their own (that doesn't mean you have a dremel in the garage).

[SamAdams]

The OP doesn't mention what he wants the 1911 for. If a fun gun for the range, that's one thing. As a primary reliable concealed carry gun - - - well, I have 1911s that I bought for less than $1k . . . many years ago. And over the years I've done what I needed to make them even more reliable. The same quality of pistols would easily be in the $1500-2000 range today. (Inflation has risen their apparent prices over the passing years.)

You can have fun and enjoy a 1911. IMO - there's nothing wrong with that. But it takes an investment in money, time, and dedication to get a reliable CCW 1911 and learn how to run it. I'll keep the few I still have, but aren't in the market for another one now.

[JHC]

I've owned 11 but only own one now, which is a custom gun built by Dave Sams. It's pretty awesome. But the first 10 were made up of a GI Ithaca 1911A1, a Gold Cup, some Colt GMs, Colt Commander and a couple Combat Commanders, and two Springfield Armorys; one a Loaded and one a TRP. Of that line up, only the Gold Cup was a little finicky. The rest all ran great for me.

If I were going out to buy my first today; all things considered it would probably be a new production Colt Series 70 Government Model.

[LittleLebowski]

Luck of the draw.

I purchased 20 1911s over the last 10 years. I have kept four of them, but only trust one to watch over my daughter.

This guy shoots a lot. Food for thought.

[JSGlock34]

Luck of the draw.

I purchased 20 1911s over the last 10 years. I have kept four of them, but only trust one to watch over my daughter.

I seem to recall you shooting a Springfield Professional at a KSTG match?

[JonInWA]

Echoing others, if you choose to go the 1911 route, for your first one, I absolutely think that you should ONLY consider a 5" .45 ACP one. At under $1,000, the only one that I feel comfortable in recommending personally would be a Colt, either a 1991, Series 70, or XSE/XSE Variant (such as the Combat Elite). Hilton Yam is also complimentary of Springfield's Loaded MC.

Hopefully, limited to those recommendations, you'll be pretty much "good to go" out of the box, at least functionally. You may find yourself subsequently wanting to dehorn, have an action job performed, replace some of the fire control components and/or sights, magazines....

It's a 1911...

For the amount of money that you'll be spending on what might or might not be a "work in progress" with a 1911, you might also want to consider something like a HK45/HK45C (in .45 ACP) or a P30/P30L in a variant with a mechanical safety, allowing you the cocked-and-locked alternative, if you really, really are fixated on a single-action pistol...

Best, Jon

[Alaskapopo]

Echoing others, if you choose to go the 1911 route, for your first one, I absolutely think that you should ONLY consider a 5" .45 ACP one. At under $1,000, the only one that I feel comfortable in recommending personally would be a Colt, either a 1991, Series 70, or XSE/XSE Variant (such as the Combat Elite). Hilton Yam is also complimentary of Springfield's Loaded MC.

Hopefully, limited to those recommendations, you'll be pretty much "good to go" out of the box, at least functionally. You may find yourself subsequently wanting to dehorn, have an action job performed, replace some of the fire control components and/or sights, magazines....

It's a 1911...

For the amount of money that you'll be spending on what might or might not be a "work in progress" with a 1911, you might also want to consider something like a HK45/HK45C (in .45 ACP) or a P30/P30L in a variant with a mechanical safety, allowing you the cocked-and-locked alternative, if you really, really are fixated on a single-action pistol...

Best, Jon
Then he would have a single action pistol with a bad trigger and a high bore axis magnifying recoil. Another option is to buy a STI Trojan from a reputable smith like Dawson Precision and pay for the reliability tune if your really worried. Seen a lot of new IDPA shooters even go with the Spartan with no reliability tune and have good reliability.

[Jason F]

If $1000 is your budget, look for an MC Operator or something similar.

But I think the reason Bill refrained from this discussion (besides the fact that he's answered this question before), is because you're trying to play cheap in an expensive mans game.

You're either going to spend more than your budget to get a reliable gun, or you're going to be disappointed by not spending considerably more and getting an unreliable gun. OR, you could buy something else and use the money for ammo / training / etc instead.

(This is coming from a 1911 fan - I carry one every day actually. But the reality is to find a hard use, high reliability 1911 you're going to have to invest more money in to the gun itself, into the magazines, and in to maintenance than you will with pretty much any other gun.)

[JHC]

If he has made it clear he'd like to try a 1911, I say encourage him get into this classic design with a reasonable choice around $1000. I don't think his life or retirement will be at risk if the 1911 doesn't work out for him. He has other solid pistols to fall back on.

[45dotACP]

Nothing to say that hasn't already been said. If you want to stake your life on it, it should probably be either a Colt or Springfield and you should know how to manage the little idiosyncrasies the gun produces.

For funsies, I'd just buy a Springfield and start playing around with it. Go on forums dedicated to said pistol design, learn all about the little details involved with keeping it running and then do the 2,000 round challenge for giggles. Have fun either way. The 1911 is a really fun gun to shoot.
Cheers!

[SecondsCount]

I will add another item. Typically the magazines that come with a 1911 are marginal. My personal experience has been with Tripp, Metalform, and Chip McCormick magazines. CM Powermags have done very well for me.

[Zhurdan]

Agreed on the Chip McCormick mags. Best luck with them over factory, Colt, or pretty much any off brand mags. Seems to me, their followers are more uniform.

[Magic_Salad0892]

For a starting 1911:

Colt Series 70
Colt XSE
Colt 1991 5''
Springfield Mil Spec/GI
Springfield Operator
Springfield Loaded

All in .45ACP.

[BLR]

Deleted.

[NETim]

If $1000 is your budget, look for an MC Operator or something similar.

But I think the reason Bill refrained from this discussion (besides the fact that he's answered this question before), is because you're trying to play cheap in an expensive mans game.

You're either going to spend more than your budget to get a reliable gun, or you're going to be disappointed by not spending considerably more and getting an unreliable gun. OR, you could buy something else and use the money for ammo / training / etc instead.

(This is coming from a 1911 fan - I carry one every day actually. But the reality is to find a hard use, high reliability 1911 you're going to have to invest more money in to the gun itself, into the magazines, and in to maintenance than you will with pretty much any other gun.)

Yep.

[ADKilla]

When I first started out carrying a firearm for personal protection I drifted toward the 1911 based upon the Gospel according to Jeff Cooper. Of the numerous ones I have purchased and sold over the years, I now retain only two custom-made 5" models, primarily for senitmental reasons. Today when the .45 call comes (and it's rare) the pistol that fullfills the order is my HK USP45, otherwise I will usually be found carrying 9mm.

As numerous fellow 1911 affecianados have proclaimed: while a properly customized 5" steel-frame single-stack 1911 in .45 ACP is fine choice, the trade-off is that it also requires a dedicated user willing to spend a significant amount of money to get it properly built and considerable time to maintain it; money and time which could be better spent on ammunition and shooting. In addition to the Army's Tier One Special Mission Unit, both Larry Vickers and Hilton Yam have drifted away from building their custom 1911s, further many other former members of that unit now in the training industry favor of a more modern design--HK, M&P, Glock...maybe there's a reason for that?

That being said, a SA Operator is a good base gun. However, I would tell you from experience that $1000 will be your limiting factor to getting the optimal reliability you seek, as much of the available capital will be eaten up in the initial purchase. You will most likely need to have some reliability work done and also purchase some good magazines. Unless you have the gunsmith training to DIY, that will not be cheap and you might be waiting for longer than you prefer.

Best of luck...

[JAD]

1996 Kimber custom classic
1997 Colt MK IV lw commander
1998 Springfield mil spec
1999 Kimber Ultra (3", external extractor)
2005 Colt xse .38 super commander
1981 Colt series 70
1968 Colt lw commander
2011 Dan Wesson cco

The Ultra never ran and got sold, der. The series 70 didn't run with its collet bushing and I had to replace it for $10. The dan Wesson shot high and had a grip screw cross-threaded. None cost more than $1000, most around $700, except for the Dan Wesson.

Other than that, none have required gun smithing to run (several have had it for ergonomic or aesthetic reasons). The springer got traded, the ultra got fobbed off, and the first lw became my groomsman's gift. Other than that I have them all and would and have carried them.

I am very interested in Ruger's 1911s. I cannot find a clear verdict, which surprises me. The ruger commander is probably my next purchase.

[ScotchMan]

Thanks for the replies everyone. For those of you not reading, this is not a first gun, or a carry gun. This is a "I want a 1911" gun. I have an HK45 already, its not going anywhere. I have carry guns which I am very happy with. If I got a 1911 and it was the bee's knees and functioned with everything I threw at it, I could maybe see it getting a promotion. But that is not the intention nor a requirement.

Tamara, you sort of indirectly implied the guns I've worked with are not quality guns? Or am I misinterpreting that. I do know that Officer's models are not a good benchmark, and that Taurus is at the bottom end of quality. I am basing most of this on the 5" Sig, which I was under the impression is one of the better production 1911s out there. Is that not the case?

Would I expect to get more reliability out of the box with a Springfield Loaded than a Sig 1911? I thought they were about level with each other, if that is not the case, that is an interesting data point.

[JHC]

My impression albeit from only paying attention to 1911 developments "part time" is that the Sig gun is generally not considered on par with SA or Colt - although I think SA choices should start at the Range Officer and then upwards ($$$) in the catalog from there. I've heard so many good things about current prod Colt quality and small part quality from 1911 hounds that I've gotten Colt biased.

[LittleLebowski]

I wouldn't buy a Sig 1911 were I in the 1911 market.

[JV_]

I've always regarded the Sig 1911 as a way for the Sig fanbois to get a 1911. It's not a 1911 for someone looking for a good/great 1911.

[GJM]

"What is the bottom line on 1911 reliability?"

There is no exact bottom line. Maybe great, maybe crappy, or anywhere in between.

[JAD]

I am fussy about the fit of the grip safety to the tang. If there's a gap, it rips me up. I have found this to be the main reason that inexpensive 1911s get turned into expensive 1911s.

[BLR]

Thanks for the replies everyone. For those of you not reading, this is not a first gun, or a carry gun. This is a "I want a 1911" gun. I have an HK45 already, its not going anywhere. I have carry guns which I am very happy with. If I got a 1911 and it was the bee's knees and functioned with everything I threw at it, I could maybe see it getting a promotion. But that is not the intention nor a requirement.

Tamara, you sort of indirectly implied the guns I've worked with are not quality guns? Or am I misinterpreting that. I do know that Officer's models are not a good benchmark, and that Taurus is at the bottom end of quality. I am basing most of this on the 5" Sig, which I was under the impression is one of the better production 1911s out there. Is that not the case?

Would I expect to get more reliability out of the box with a Springfield Loaded than a Sig 1911? I thought they were about level with each other, if that is not the case, that is an interesting data point.

An Officer, as well as a Commander, is not a 1911.

I like 1911s. They are the only guns that make my heart beat faster than precision bolt rifles. I've spent a lot of time on the design. I don't agree with many of the rules of thumb and generalities out there.

Here is the opinion I have on 1911s (which is shared by several firearm, not just 1911 enthusiasts like me, engineers: The P35 is the most reliable pistol ever designed, and the 1911A1 is the second. The 1911 in it's current iteration, the most durable pistol available. They are million round guns with modern steel.

1911s aren't the "King of the Feedway Stoppage." 1911s with crap magazines are the King of the Feedway stoppage. But, there are lots and lots of challengers for the throne.

You don't need to spend $2500 for a good, reliable 1911.

You don't need a reliability package right out of the gate for good quality 1911s. Think NM Loadeds, XSEs, and up.

$1300 buys you a good 1911, with a reliability package. Not a Rogers/Yost/etc gun. But you don't need that. Keep in mind though, Yost didn't build his reputation on $5000 guns. The Yo-Bo 1* guns typified what a general use 1911 should be.

Forget "hard use." Every 1911 made from good parts is a "hard use" gun. Even if it didn't cost you $5k to put your hands on it.

The key to all recoil operated pistols (well, nearly all guns) is the magazine. A good mag doesn't cost less than $30. Notice how much time, effort HK puts into magazines? They aren't the best firearms engineers, but they are the best magazine engineers. The HK45 and P30s are crude, rough guns with magazines that are works of art.

1911s aren't maintenance hogs. Think Todd would have a maintenance hog for carry gun? There isn't a part on a 1911 that isn't overbuilt and designed. And add in modern metallurgy, you have bullet proof guns as long as your gunsmith or manufacturer doesn't screw it up. Do they require more lubrication? Sure. But if a Glock had full rails, and no EN-Tennifer, it would too. Same with an HK. Friction is friction, be it a "modern" gun or not.

1911s weigh a ton. But any all steel gun will. Sucks to carry, but helps with recoil.

The much maligned extractor is far more tolerant to tension variation than the people making a living griping about it let on.

1911s don't hold many rounds. But, neither do HK45s. I like carrying a 45. I know logically it's not significantly more effective than a modern 9mm. I don't care.

1911s cost more. Period. It takes more to forge and whittle down a chunk of steel than it does to injection mold nylon.

Every 1911 out there, including my beloved Wilsons, is reverse engineered from Colt. Colt, even if they decide to ignore it, has the correct specs for a reliable 1911. I go to Wilson and Colt almost exclusively for a reason.

Getting a lemon is, as was said, luck of the draw. Same with Glock, S&W, and so on.

You can't have a 1911 that holds 2" groups at 50yrds be as tolerant (meaning having a wide operating envelope) as a 3" at 25yrd G17. Tighten up the chamber, the gun will choke on crappy ammo. Tighten slide to frame fit, lubrication becomes more important.

If you want a reliable, accurate, bullet proof, easy to shoot well 45, it will cost you $2k and up. And you'll have to feed it good ammo.

I rank 1911s in terms of value like this: CQB, Colt Custom Shop, EB 1911, SACS (guys, my Custom Carrys are nicer than my Pros. And I have a "few" of each), NHC, then the custom stuff, factory Colts, then SA and Kimber together (I realize that some will read that like a trolling statement. It's not meant to be, just a reflection of looking at a bunch of them). Before anyone gets their panties in a twist, I'm not saying a $3000 CQB is better than their $6000 "hard use" custom. I'm saying when that $6k "hard use" gun cracks the breech face, you aren't going to get to send the gun back, get it fixed for free, and have it back in your hands in a week. Which sucks, ask me how I know.

Hope this helps.

[Guinnessman]

My Dad just ordered a Sig 1911 and should be picking it up next week. When I was asked by him, "Which 1911 for $1000," I replied Springfield or Colt and pointed him to the many threads on PF.com and M4C regarding 1911's. Well, he listened to other forums and the gun shop peeps over me. Oh well, I am anxious to shoot that gun to see how well it runs. I may start a little thread down the road to see its progress. Maybe it will live up to the name "Nightmare."

[TCinVA]

I agree with Bill. If I wanted a basic 1911, I'd buy a Colt and maybe lightly mod it. If I want a custom, I'd buy a Wilson Combat. I'd also be open to a gun from the Springfield custom shop, as they seem to have their stuff together too. If I were buying a custom/semi-custom 1911 today I wouldn't be buying a Les Baer just because I think there are better options from better companies to deal with.

[JohnK]

If I ever had a question regarding a 1911, Bill is at the top of the short list of people I would go to for advice on design, performance, and any problems I might experience. His post is solid advice. Definitely factor it in to your decisions, OP.

[JHC]

An Officer, as well as a Commander, is not a 1911.

I like 1911s. They are the only guns that make my heart beat faster than precision bolt rifles. I've spent a lot of time on the design. I don't agree with many of the rules of thumb and generalities out there.

Here is the opinion I have on 1911s (which is shared by several firearm, not just 1911 enthusiasts like me, engineers: The P35 is the most reliable pistol ever designed, and the 1911A1 is the second. The 1911 in it's current iteration, the most durable pistol available. They are million round guns with modern steel.

1911s aren't the "King of the Feedway Stoppage." 1911s with crap magazines are the King of the Feedway stoppage. But, there are lots and lots of challengers for the throne.

You don't need to spend $2500 for a good, reliable 1911.

You don't need a reliability package right out of the gate for good quality 1911s. Think NM Loadeds, XSEs, and up.

$1300 buys you a good 1911, with a reliability package. Not a Rogers/Yost/etc gun. But you don't need that. Keep in mind though, Yost didn't build his reputation on $5000 guns. The Yo-Bo 1* guns typified what a general use 1911 should be.

Forget "hard use." Every 1911 made from good parts is a "hard use" gun. Even if it didn't cost you $5k to put your hands on it.

The key to all recoil operated pistols (well, nearly all guns) is the magazine. A good mag doesn't cost less than $30. Notice how much time, effort HK puts into magazines? They aren't the best firearms engineers, but they are the best magazine engineers. The HK45 and P30s are crude, rough guns with magazines that are works of art.

1911s aren't maintenance hogs. Think Todd would have a maintenance hog for carry gun? There isn't a part on a 1911 that isn't overbuilt and designed. And add in modern metallurgy, you have bullet proof guns as long as your gunsmith or manufacturer doesn't screw it up. Do they require more lubrication? Sure. But if a Glock had full rails, and no EN-Tennifer, it would too. Same with an HK. Friction is friction, be it a "modern" gun or not.

1911s weigh a ton. But any all steel gun will. Sucks to carry, but helps with recoil.

The much maligned extractor is far more tolerant to tension variation than the people making a living griping about it let on.

1911s don't hold many rounds. But, neither do HK45s. I like carrying a 45. I know logically it's not significantly more effective than a modern 9mm. I don't care.

1911s cost more. Period. It takes more to forge and whittle down a chunk of steel than it does to injection mold nylon.

Every 1911 out there, including my beloved Wilsons, is reverse engineered from Colt. Colt, even if they decide to ignore it, has the correct specs for a reliable 1911. I go to Wilson and Colt almost exclusively for a reason.

Getting a lemon is, as was said, luck of the draw. Same with Glock, S&W, and so on.

You can't have a 1911 that holds 2" groups at 50yrds be as tolerant (meaning having a wide operating envelope) as a 3" at 25yrd G17. Tighten up the chamber, the gun will choke on crappy ammo. Tighten slide to frame fit, lubrication becomes more important.

If you want a reliable, accurate, bullet proof, easy to shoot well 45, it will cost you $2k and up. And you'll have to feed it good ammo.

I rank 1911s in terms of value like this: CQB, Colt Custom Shop, EB 1911, SACS (guys, my Custom Carrys are nicer than my Pros. And I have a "few" of each), NHC, then the custom stuff, factory Colts, then SA and Kimber together (I realize that some will read that like a trolling statement. It's not meant to be, just a reflection of looking at a bunch of them). Before anyone gets their panties in a twist, I'm not saying a $3000 CQB is better than their $6000 "hard use" custom. I'm saying when that $6k "hard use" gun cracks the breech face, you aren't going to get to send the gun back, get it fixed for free, and have it back in your hands in a week. Which sucks, ask me how I know.

Hope this helps.

That's an awesome post and I appreciate your A-Z run down.

[Matt O]

An Officer, as well as a Commander, is not a 1911.

I like 1911s. They are the only guns that make my heart beat faster than precision bolt rifles. I've spent a lot of time on the design. I don't agree with many of the rules of thumb and generalities out there.

Here is the opinion I have on 1911s (which is shared by several firearm, not just 1911 enthusiasts like me, engineers: The P35 is the most reliable pistol ever designed, and the 1911A1 is the second. The 1911 in it's current iteration, the most durable pistol available. They are million round guns with modern steel.

1911s aren't the "King of the Feedway Stoppage." 1911s with crap magazines are the King of the Feedway stoppage. But, there are lots and lots of challengers for the throne.

You don't need to spend $2500 for a good, reliable 1911.

You don't need a reliability package right out of the gate for good quality 1911s. Think NM Loadeds, XSEs, and up.

$1300 buys you a good 1911, with a reliability package. Not a Rogers/Yost/etc gun. But you don't need that. Keep in mind though, Yost didn't build his reputation on $5000 guns. The Yo-Bo 1* guns typified what a general use 1911 should be.

Forget "hard use." Every 1911 made from good parts is a "hard use" gun. Even if it didn't cost you $5k to put your hands on it.

The key to all recoil operated pistols (well, nearly all guns) is the magazine. A good mag doesn't cost less than $30. Notice how much time, effort HK puts into magazines? They aren't the best firearms engineers, but they are the best magazine engineers. The HK45 and P30s are crude, rough guns with magazines that are works of art.

1911s aren't maintenance hogs. Think Todd would have a maintenance hog for carry gun? There isn't a part on a 1911 that isn't overbuilt and designed. And add in modern metallurgy, you have bullet proof guns as long as your gunsmith or manufacturer doesn't screw it up. Do they require more lubrication? Sure. But if a Glock had full rails, and no EN-Tennifer, it would too. Same with an HK. Friction is friction, be it a "modern" gun or not.

1911s weigh a ton. But any all steel gun will. Sucks to carry, but helps with recoil.

The much maligned extractor is far more tolerant to tension variation than the people making a living griping about it let on.

1911s don't hold many rounds. But, neither do HK45s. I like carrying a 45. I know logically it's not significantly more effective than a modern 9mm. I don't care.

1911s cost more. Period. It takes more to forge and whittle down a chunk of steel than it does to injection mold nylon.

Every 1911 out there, including my beloved Wilsons, is reverse engineered from Colt. Colt, even if they decide to ignore it, has the correct specs for a reliable 1911. I go to Wilson and Colt almost exclusively for a reason.

Getting a lemon is, as was said, luck of the draw. Same with Glock, S&W, and so on.

You can't have a 1911 that holds 2" groups at 50yrds be as tolerant (meaning having a wide operating envelope) as a 3" at 25yrd G17. Tighten up the chamber, the gun will choke on crappy ammo. Tighten slide to frame fit, lubrication becomes more important.

If you want a reliable, accurate, bullet proof, easy to shoot well 45, it will cost you $2k and up. And you'll have to feed it good ammo.

I rank 1911s in terms of value like this: CQB, Colt Custom Shop, EB 1911, SACS (guys, my Custom Carrys are nicer than my Pros. And I have a "few" of each), NHC, then the custom stuff, factory Colts, then SA and Kimber together (I realize that some will read that like a trolling statement. It's not meant to be, just a reflection of looking at a bunch of them). Before anyone gets their panties in a twist, I'm not saying a $3000 CQB is better than their $6000 "hard use" custom. I'm saying when that $6k "hard use" gun cracks the breech face, you aren't going to get to send the gun back, get it fixed for free, and have it back in your hands in a week. Which sucks, ask me how I know.

Hope this helps.

That's an extraordinarily helpful write-up - your experience and opinions are very much appreciated. I've always been interested in 1911's though I've never actually shot one before. I need to remedy that one of these days...

[Rich]

Excellent luck with a Gen 1 Colt 80S Combat Elite. One of the first back then to come from factory throated. It would feed all the popular HP from the day speer flying ashtray , hydra shok , silver tip.
Most of its diet was SWC .

I wont buy another Colt Officers 45ACP.

Most my friends like the 70S over the 80S.

If I wanted a 1911 today I would go with colt over S&W / Sig etc!

[KevinB]

I lost the front sight off a 80's Combat Elite in 4 rounds...
I've had around 25 1911's in the last 25 years, and built one in Iraq as a duty gun.

From my history I would take Bill's comments to the bank.

[Westminster]

Bill, what do you consider to be the best magazines? Second, how long do you find they last when kept loaded?

[JonInWA]

I think Bill's advice is extraordinarily solid (hey, as it should be, given his engineering credentials/expertise and firearms experience, manifest in all the platforms he's discussing).

The problem that I see with recommending SIG 1911s is that they tend to be a shifting target, historically. Initially, they had great parts, but fell short in the assembly process. Then they had some great parts, but the vendors became a bit overwhelmed, and parts quality suffered, but assembly expertise got significantly better. Then there was what I call the SIG 1911 "golden window," roughly from 2006-2007, were there was concurrently superb parts quality from exceptionally recognized vendors and excellent (and ramped up) assembly by SIG. Subsequent to around 2007, SIG began to both introduce MIM components (agreed, not a de facto bad thing per se, as there's "good MIM" and "bad MIM"), but it seemed to herald a trend of internal component price-shopping, with less expensive components substituted for the previous ones. While there may be exceptions to this (presumably in the SIG Custom Shop editions), my specific confirmation regarding this info is spotty. SIG's 1911 emphasis seems to have shifted to models oriented towards the "flavor of the month" crowd as opposed to concentrating on core high quality components.

For a hobbyist user, they may be perfectly sufficient. For others, Bill's comments (and others on the thread here), are bang on target. Quite simply, in my opinion, in the 1911 word, there is no free lunch from a quality manufacturer. While there might be periods of pricing incentives, in the long run quality components and quality manufacturing processes have some pretty fixed costs. Simply take a gander at Brownell's 1911 catalog, factor in wholesale pricing, and you'll get a good idea. I very strongly suspect that it's close to impossible to produce a quality 1911 for much less than $650-and then profit, marketing, and transactional costs need to be factored in-so you're realistically looking at a "street price" of a minimum of around $800+.

Best, Jon

[BLR]

Bill, what do you consider to be the best magazines? Second, how long do you find they last when kept loaded?

I like Cobras and ETMs.

Springs wear out with use, not with time.

Aside from the P35, there is no more reliable pistol than a Colt built 1911A1 using gov't 7 round mags and 230gr ball at 850fps.

[Tom Givens]

I carried a 1911 by one custom maker or another for 30 years. These included Colts , Kimbers, and Springfields worked over by Wilson, Yam, and others.
I urge you to read the links below, by Hilton Yam. Hilton has extensive experience building 1911’s as well as using them operationally as a SWAT agent. I can find very little to dispute here.

http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/1911-User%27s-Guide.html

http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/Choosing-a-1911-for-Duty-Use.html

[NETim]

That's an awesome post and I appreciate your A-Z run down.

Eventually there will be a dedicated BLR section on PF.com, where Bill can expound on truth, beauty and metallurgical science. ;)

The Wilson ETM's, particularly the flat wire versions, are a thing of beauty. The Tripp Gen II's aren't bad either.

And I'm feeling double smart now for picking CQB's. :)

Thanks Bill!!!

[Haraise]

Of course, this makes me curious, what does the P35 have over /every other/ gun design out there?

[SecondsCount]

I am not a big Dave Severns fan but I thought he did a good job in this thread (http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=321236) of comparing several 1911 pistols, giving an idea on what the differences are and why.

[Westminster]

I like Cobras and ETMs.
What were the deficiencies with CMC PowerMags? For me, they seemed less prone to feed lip spread than Wilson mags...

[KevinB]

Of course, this makes me curious, what does the P35 have over /every other/ gun design out there?

It's awesome, and not in .45 ;)

Other than one cannot mount a light easily I would still swear by my Kurt Wickman - Novak custom gun I had done in 1997


I've had the best luck with the CMC Powermags - Wilson Elite's not so bad, but other Wilson springs died really quick and needed the Tripp mag spring/follower upgrade.

[BLR]

Happily!

P35s have two things going for them:

1. The magazine, much like the 7 round GI 1911, sits nearly perfectly in the middle of the machines design envelope (first thru last round). In other words, the magazine for the first round and the last round provide enough magazine thrust to make sure the round is position correctly within the designed slide velocity. Additionally, the feed lips are designed with the correct amount of retention to allow the extractor the correct amount of grip prior to fully stripping the round. I, and my friends at S&W, HK, and Sig, agree - the best example of proper magazine-gun positioning are P35s and mil spec 1911s with mil spec 7 round magazines. This point is what determines, to a significant degree, the mechanical reliability of a magazine fed weapon. I'd be willing to bet that Kevin would echo this comment, and his engineers would shout it from a mountain top. When evaluating a pistol for reliability, you are looking at the magazine primarily. Fact of the matter is this: for this purpose, the gun minus the magazine does exactly the same thing each time, every time. The magazine is dynamic. The ammunition column varies as rounds are expended. Meaning force necessary to strip a round changes, force on the top round changes, and so on. If you take an 8 round 1911 magazine and load it all the way up, you will notice the top round has all the force (or nearly so) applied to the case rim. That's not a good thing. The degree of this is much less in a 7 rounder, and is the largest reason for their superior reliability. This is one of the inherent advantages of double column magazines - the top round is usually more consistent in position and retention than the top in an 8 round 1911 mag.

2. The P35 is the most sand/dirt tight pistol out there. This comes into play mostly in practical application of the gun. An inherent weakness (the degree of which is subject to argument) with polymer frame guns is the softness of the polymer. That allows, or can allow, sand to lock up a mechanism through abrasive/sand embedding into the parts. Think trigger return on a Glock. Then there is the nice, tight ejection port on the P35 as compared with most modern pistols. Again, everything is a tradeoff in engineering. Big ejection ports might allow you to stick your finger in to the port easier, but it also allows sand, grit, rocks, and the rest much better access.

Are those argument academic? Depends on your perspective. Why do I say the P35 is superior to the P30? That has to do with slide mass and frame rigidity. But at this point, we are really splitting hairs that have been split.

My $0.02, and it's worth exactly what you paid for it.

[1slow]

Bill,
Thanks hugely for elaborating in expert fashion on reliability, pistol and magazine design. This allows me to see clearly things I had had a glimpse of in the past.

[JSGlock34]

I've had the best luck with the CMC Powermags - Wilson Elite's not so bad, but other Wilson springs died really quick and needed the Tripp mag spring/follower upgrade.

This mirrors my experience as well. CMC Powermags have run well for me. My Wilson 47Ds springs didn't last very long. I installed the Tripp Kit, which cured that problem though it reduced the 47D capacity to seven rounds.

Interestingly, the Marines specify the older seven round Wilson 47 for use with the M45 and M45A1.

I have not tried the ETM, but the ETM HD/+P is on my short list to try.

[Slavex]

And this is where we need someone with millions of dollars to test 30 or 40 guns in one go. Because I don't agree. In my limited experience, and I admit, limited. I have not seen many 1911s of any model, be they from the box el cheapos to 6 or 7 thousand dollar customs, that run as well as a Glock, Beretta, Sig, CZ etc. Of all the guns I've seen through competition, classes I've taught or attended, the one gun I've come to expect to fail is the 1911s, in large numbers. Oh, and XDs too. Sure the odd one has proven reliable, Todd's for example as beaten any I've ever seen or had experience with. But most especially the off the shelf models seem to suffer more than the customs. While I've never taken the time to investigate every single failure, maybe a lot are magazine related, but I know extractors and ejectors have been the issue with some of them. Of all the current handgun designs, the 1911 is one of the few I have zero interest in owning.




Aside from the P35, there is no more reliable pistol than a Colt built 1911A1 using gov't 7 round mags and 230gr ball at 850fps.

[Rex G]

Luck of the draw.

I purchased 20 1911s over the last 10 years. I have kept four of them, but only trust one to watch over my daughter.

My total is somewhat smaller, but not by much. Only two never malfunctioned, a full-sized all-steel early SAI, which I only ever used with FMJ RN, back in the 1980s, and my Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special. The TRS is the only 1911 I still have today, which happily feeds every JHP I have tried, and is cheerfully compatible with magazines made/sold my Baer, Colt, Metalform, Wilson, McCormick, and maybe others I have forgotten.

I had two Series 80 Colt Government Models that were reliable, with only the very rare malf. The Stainless was 100% reliable after the first 200 rounds, and became my Uncle Chuck's gun, as I would not sell him a pistol I would not trust. My blued Govt was 100% reliable for years, before it had a failure to go fully into battery, which I resolved instantly with a tap on the upper rear of the slide, and kept shooting. I now deeply regret selling this one, when I went almost all-Glock in 2002.

I had three early Kimbers, which caused much grief, though I got one of them reliable enough to use as a duty pistol, IF, and ONLY IF, I feed it with ONLY Metalform magazines.

Every 1911 that I tried, with a barrel less than five inches, caused me varying degrees of pain and regret. I have disremembered exactly how many Officer's ACP and Commander-sized Colts I have tried. Some were almost reliable enough to trust. Almost. I should have bought stock in Colt before buying any of them, so I would have at least some return on my investment.

OTOH, I learned much malfunction-clearing from those Kimbers and abbreviated-barrel Colts, and can detail-strip a 1911 right quickly. I reckon I also learned much about anger management, too. Training and familiarity are valuable! :)

I have mostly used seven-round magazines, none of them cheap or surplus mags.

[Magic_Salad0892]

I am not a big Dave Severns fan

Just curious, but why?

[Malamute]

I like Cobras and ETMs.

Springs wear out with use, not with time.

Aside from the P35, there is no more reliable pistol than a Colt built 1911A1 using gov't 7 round mags and 230gr ball at 850fps.


Can I ask what the practical functional differences are between the 1911's and the A1's? I have a 1911 made in '14. It just occurred to me recently that it must have made it out of govt service fairly early in its life, because it hasn't been updated to A1 specs, as a 1917 made gun I had in the past was.

Most of the parts in the gun are pre-A1 type, including the long type, one piece trigger/bow.

[SecondsCount]

Just curious, but why?

I guess I shouldn't make a statement like that and just walk away. The biggest issue is that he focuses too much on fit and finish rather than quality and most important, reliability. There are a couple other things but PM me if you really need to know because it borderlines on forum bashing.

[YVK]

BiIl, I read your post with a big interest. I've a question, if you have time and desire. You spoke how P35 and 1911 positioned a mag favorably. I've heard, more than once, that 1911 presents its top round at a relatively steep angle as compared to modern pistols. I was told that it was detrimental to reliable feeding, hence, such attention to proper dimensions of a feed ramp, polishing, chamber work, and preference for high-presenting mags like Tripp's.
Would you comment if the above is true and, if yes, what's the magnitude of its importance?

[DocGKR]

Bill,

Great posts. Certainly a properly built, in spec 1911 is the most durable current pistol available. Likewise, all my custom .45 Auto 1911's were as reliable as my Glocks and M&P's. The 1911's just cost a lot more and took a lot longer to get there. Were I to purchase a .45 Auto 1911 today, I'd likely go with a Wilson CQB, SA Custom Shop Pistol, or or perhaps a SA Pro (knowing it might need some work). The SA loaded's I've owned all had problems right out of the box. Also concur that the 7 rd mags generally perform better than the 8 rd ones.

[TCinVA]

The SA loaded's I've owned all had problems right out of the box.

Ditto.

[BLR]

BiIl, I read your post with a big interest. I've a question, if you have time and desire. You spoke how P35 and 1911 positioned a mag favorably. I've heard, more than once, that 1911 presents its top round at a relatively steep angle as compared to modern pistols. I was told that it was detrimental to reliable feeding, hence, such attention to proper dimensions of a feed ramp, polishing, chamber work, and preference for high-presenting mags like Tripp's.
Would you comment if the above is true and, if yes, what's the magnitude of its importance?

Sure. Give me a bit of time (I'm still WAY behind in putting together my lectures this semester). As a primer, the guns with the worst, meaning the greatest departure from magazine position/angle to chamber position/angel that I've seen, are M&Ps. I had some pictures comparing Glocks, 1911s, and M&Ps in the old "I don't get the 1911 thread." I'll post some P35 and CZ75 pictures ASAP to compare with also.

FWIW, this was one of the "generalities" I mentioned in my original post that I don't agree with. Most of these generalities/commonly accepted thoughts are observations of/explanations of things seen but not understood. They get repeated a few times, then accepted, then chiseled into stone by the bromance groupies. Extractor tension and dropping the slide on an empty chamber are big ones too. People say it without understanding what it is they are saying.

I think I have a thread here where I showed impact points on a couple 1911s - one a Wilson that shows one smallish impact zone, high up on the feedramp. Another Wilson that shows impact points all along the feedramp. That was done by tweeking of the magazine.

When discussing 1911 reliability, 90% of the conversation should be centered around magazine springs and feed lips. All the rest, extractors, tension, polishing, throating, and so on, make up 10% of the package. That is a somewhat arbitrary division, but I'm comfortable with it.

HK understands this, and that's how they make the most reliable pistols out there. HK is a magazine company. "1911s," whatever that means, are plagued with too many magazines and too many builders/gunsmiths/guys who think they make combat art who don't understand the changes they make or why. It's just how they've been taught to do it. And most of the upper stratosphere of 1911 builders can trace themselves back to Swenson and/or Gunsite.

I'll go so far as to say this: The reason we are still fumbling around in the dark on many things concerning 1911s, and pistols in general is this - we don't have any Kesleys or Bolands anymore. Those two understood the gun. The understood feeding, magazines, and so on. I've been gobbling up examples of their work for the last couple years for a reason.

The best 1911 pistol-smith I know of said this to me: Use only 'brand x' magazines with good springs with the feedramp cut at 'angle x.' He understood the relationship, though only empirically. He found a sweet spot. And it vexed him immensely when the mags were "upgraded."

[Jaywalker]

In a past life (1980s) one of my military assignments was that of contract compliance, I guess you would say. I seldom read a 1911 thread without someone expressing a preference for one that's "in-spec," but there wasn't such a thing in the 1980s and I doubt much that there is one now. In today's (or, more accurately, 1980s) contracting, when the feds buy an engineering effort, they also buy the "data package" that will allow production at another manufacturer; this was not the case in ca. 1911. Sure, rough design drawings and production plans existed, but much of the tweaking necessary to make them run likely took place among the gunsmiths and machinists who'd been doing it for long, long production runs but did not exist on paper. (Supposition on my part.)

I was involved in one case that made this clear to me. One of our manufacturers presented a lot of 14,000 1911 slides for inspection and acceptance, but my QA guy had to reject all of them for non-compliance with the non-complete specs we did have. The manufacturer recovered his position by selling them all commercially. So, yes, the slides in this case were out of spec, but there were other cases in which we received failure reports (I forget the nomenclature) for items that had passed inspection, i.e., that were in-spec when when they left the plant.

The 1980s were a kind of high point, I think, for government contract quality, before COTS (contractor off the shelf) brought commercial standards to the military; COTS did make things less costly and provided quicker delivery. (I just deleted a boring discussion of procedural quality control.) But even if the 1980s provided good quality 1911s, none were individually tested before acceptance, as far as I know, and I suspect individually-tested models from previous years likely yielded better final results, but that's just an opinion.

[jdw174]

At one time, I owned two 1911's that were built by Richard Heinie, who I consider to be the finest 1911 'smith that ever walked the planet. I can't begin to tell you the number of rounds I put through both of those, but it numbered in the many thousands. I never experienced a single malfunction through either of them, and I ran mags from $4 mil surplus to the higher priced ones. And both of them fed anything and everything as far as bullet shapes were concerned. Accuracy was outstanding. As for just buying one off the shelf......these days I just don't know.

[JHC]

When discussing 1911 reliability, 90% of the conversation should be centered around magazine springs and feed lips. All the rest, extractors, tension, polishing, throating, and so on, make up 10% of the package. That is a somewhat arbitrary division, but I'm comfortable with it.




When I bought that Ithaca GI 1911A1 and took it out and it fed everything including Gold Dots, Ranger, Golden Saber I was puzzled. But I wondered if it was the Wilson and McCormick mags. Wow.

[Tamara]

When evaluating a pistol for reliability, you are looking at the magazine primarily. Fact of the matter is this: for this purpose, the gun minus the magazine does exactly the same thing each time, every time. The magazine is dynamic. The ammunition column varies as rounds are expended. Meaning force necessary to strip a round changes, force on the top round changes, and so on.

Word.

I am crushing on you so hard for your posts in this thread.

(Regarding the Kimber v. Springfield thing in your initial post and past exchanges on the topic, remember that the vast majority of my Kimber experience was in the period of '01-'06. If we define "Kimber 1911" as you stipulated, a 5-inch internal extractor gun, then I think the choice between Kimber and SA comes down to whose rollmark you find prettier. ;) )

[justintime]

so what about this kimber? This appears to have an internal extractor and is a 5" gun and is only 700 http://www.championfirearms.com/Kimber-Custom-II-45ACP-Blued-3200001-p/3200001.htm

And ruger has a 5" gun for 600 http://www.championfirearms.com/Ruger-SR1911-Stainless-5-Barrel-45ACP-p/06700.htm

s&w under 1k - http://www.championfirearms.com/Smith-Wesson-SW1911-Stainless-45ACP-p/108482.htm

The springfield loaded guns are also under 1k (although this page says they are unreliable.)

If they would feed off of quality magazines they could be interesting fun guns until proven. Wonder if they are accurate

[JohnK]

so what about this kimber? This appears to have an internal extractor and is a 5" gun and is only 700 http://www.championfirearms.com/Kimber-Custom-II-45ACP-Blued-3200001-p/3200001.htm

And ruger has a 5" gun for 600 http://www.championfirearms.com/Ruger-SR1911-Stainless-5-Barrel-45ACP-p/06700.htm

s&w under 1k - http://www.championfirearms.com/Smith-Wesson-SW1911-Stainless-45ACP-p/108482.htm

The springfield loaded guns are also under 1k (although this page says they are unreliable.)

If they would feed off of quality magazines they could be interesting fun guns until proven. Wonder if they are accurate

My Springfields that I owned prior to just getting into a Les Baer, combined, had 4,500 +/- rounds through them. No problems and both were accurate. I just desired something more.

ETA: One was a loaded, one was a Range Officer, both parkerized.

[Chefdog]

I'm curious to know where the S&W "E" series guns would fit into Bill's list. I remember him saying somewhere that for a non-standard gun (external extractor) that they seem to run well, and they were also looked at fairly favorably over at MSW.

[BLR]

I'm curious to know where the S&W "E" series guns would fit into Bill's list. I remember him saying somewhere that for a non-standard gun (external extractor) that they seem to run well, and they were also looked at fairly favorably over at MSW.

When I go slumming, I typically go with Sig :D

[Chefdog]

When I go slumming, I typically go with Sig :D

Ouch.

[Robinson]

I had a couple of SA Loaded models that ran fine for me. One was a 9mm target model that passed the 2K Challenge with flying colors. Then I started having issues with a couple of my mags for that gun. But it was obvious that the source of the issue was magazine-related and thus pretty easy to fix.

I just have three Colts now (two .45s and one Super .38) and they are solid. Though again, the .38 doesn't feed Aguila ammo very well using the original magazines. I bought a few Metalform mags and it feeds everything with those. The .45s don't seem picky, at least not yet after a couple thousand rounds.

[Slavex]

The problem I have is that the words "once it's been tuned" or "at considerable cost to have worked on" or similar, remove the 1911 as a platform I would choose from. I want a gun that I can walk into a store, buy, and walk out with knowing it will work the way it is. I have yet to see anyone I see in person experience that with any 1911. Even guys I now who buy custom built SVs are told it will take 5000 rounds to get it going properly.

[Tamara]

The problem I have is that the words "once it's been tuned" or "at considerable cost to have worked on" or similar, remove the 1911 as a platform I would choose from. I want a gun that I can walk into a store, buy, and walk out with knowing it will work the way it is. I have yet to see anyone I see in person experience that with any 1911. Even guys I now who buy custom built SVs are told it will take 5000 rounds to get it going properly.

I took my most recent one out of the box on Friday evening and to AFHF Saturday morning without even test firing it. It was, IIRC every bit as reliable for those two days as Todd's HK45.

[justintime]

I had a Beretta tomcat that was as reliable as Todd's hk45 for 30 minutes once.

[Tamara]

I had a Beretta tomcat that was as reliable as Todd's hk45 for 30 minutes once.

Actually, I had one failure to lock back on an empty mag in that class. I believe that was the year that the chambered round on Todd's HK45 didn't go bang on the first FAST of the day, but I've slept since then, so I might be misremembering. ;)

[Clyde from Carolina]

Bill, I'm mostly slumming with SIGs lately, but I really appreciate that post/sum-up of your thoughts on 1911s. When and if I get back into 1911s I know who I'm calling to get them done up with uber cool finishes. :-)

[BLR]

The problem I have is that the words "once it's been tuned" or "at considerable cost to have worked on" or similar, remove the 1911 as a platform I would choose from. I want a gun that I can walk into a store, buy, and walk out with knowing it will work the way it is. I have yet to see anyone I see in person experience that with any 1911. Even guys I now who buy custom built SVs are told it will take 5000 rounds to get it going properly.

You didn't know we shipped our defective guns up to Canada?

[JHC]

What is the deal? If I go buy a 1911 today, what are the chances I will get a gun that works consistently? I am considering the Springfield Loaded as my first choice. Even though I have other guns to cover all my serious needs, I don't want to drop $800 on a gun that doesn't work reliably, I've got too many guns that work to deal with that.

So what the kitten you gonna do?

[justintime]

Actually, I had one failure to lock back on an empty mag in that class. I believe that was the year that the chambered round on Todd's HK45 didn't go bang on the first FAST of the day, but I've slept since then, so I might be misremembering. ;)

that was just your guns way of letting you know it needed to rest.

[JodyH]

Theoretical reliability and reality reliability are different animals.
My experience tells me that there is no way in h-e-double hockeysticks I would choose any 1911 over a HK45C or a P35 over a P30.

[JohnK]

I got rid of all my HKs in favor of Sig P226s and 1911s...

[Tamara]

that was just your guns way of letting you know it needed to rest.

Or to get my thumb off the slide stop, one. ;)

[45dotACP]

My Caspian, which was built by yours truly, had some teething issues when I was building it. That's because I was actually building a gun by hand. Yes, I had a few instances where the hammer dropped to half cocked. Retensioning the sear spring and I'm fixed. I had a few premature lockbacks, setting my reloads to a lower OAL and filing on the slide stop lobe fixed that. Never had an issue with the extractor, because I tensioned it correctly and since all of the above, I have put about 400 rounds through without a malfunction. Long way from trusting the gun as a life saving tool, but that's not why I built it. I will probably begin competing with it shortly though. Sure, the 1911 is more finicky, but as a certain blog has shown, they can still be reliable enough to rely on.

I realize the plural of anecdote is not "data" but I would like to make the suggestion that if you buy any gun without testing it for reliability before you drop it in a holster and decide to carry it, you are being silly. Counting on "out of the box reliability" to save your life is a notion that makes me shudder. To pick up a Glock and automatically assume it won't stovepipe on every round you fire from it without having fired it is ridiculous because you haven't fired a shot, or function checked the extractor, or been bonked on the head by the brass yet.

I bought a used Glock 34, and the extractor on that puppy was barn sour. I got so many pieces of brass to the face I see why it's previous owner must have sold it. It would even jam a few times here and there. A Gen 3 no less. No big deal. A new extractor and here I am on top of the world again, but by some people's logic, I should never trust Glocks again because (at least in my experience) they jam. By other people's logic, I should not replace the extractor and still trust that Glock is the best choice for me, because they have a long proven reputation for reliability (there is a certain internet personality who recommends just that...as well as doing more pushups because your girly girl wrists aren't operator enough)

Kitten that noise. I've got the knowledge and skill to maintain my own firearms and I am well aware of what causes malfunctions. What's more, I can fix it. I am a huge fan of being your own armorer. it isn't as difficult as some would say. Also, I've been a Glock fanboy longer than I've been a 1911 fanboy, but mostly for the same reasons. I like the trigger system on both guns, and the gigantic aftermarket means I can fix it myself if it goes bad, as mechanical devices sometimes have the tendency to do. Seriously, just buy a 1911 already. I think gunsmithing is fun if you are maintaining one gun. I can see where being an armorer for a group of 1911's could have its..erm...charms.

(Rant off)

[JHC]

My Caspian, which was built by yours truly, had some teething issues when I was building it. That's because I was actually building a gun by hand. Yes, I had a few instances where the hammer dropped to half cocked. Retensioning the sear spring and I'm fixed. I had a few premature lockbacks, setting my reloads to a lower OAL and filing on the slide stop lobe fixed that. Never had an issue with the extractor, because I tensioned it correctly and since all of the above, I have put about 400 rounds through without a malfunction. Long way from trusting the gun as a life saving tool, but that's not why I built it. I will probably begin competing with it shortly though. Sure, the 1911 is more finicky, but as a certain blog has shown, they can still be reliable enough to rely on.

I realize the plural of anecdote is not "data" but I would like to make the suggestion that if you buy any gun without testing it for reliability before you drop it in a holster and decide to carry it, you are being silly. Counting on "out of the box reliability" to save your life is a notion that makes me shudder. To pick up a Glock and automatically assume it won't stovepipe on every round you fire from it without having fired it is ridiculous because you haven't fired a shot, or function checked the extractor, or been bonked on the head by the brass yet.

I bought a used Glock 34, and the extractor on that puppy was barn sour. I got so many pieces of brass to the face I see why it's previous owner must have sold it. It would even jam a few times here and there. A Gen 3 no less. No big deal. A new extractor and here I am on top of the world again, but by some people's logic, I should never trust Glocks again because (at least in my experience) they jam. By other people's logic, I should not replace the extractor and still trust that Glock is the best choice for me, because they have a long proven reputation for reliability (there is a certain internet personality who recommends just that...as well as doing more pushups because your girly girl wrists aren't operator enough)

Kitten that noise. I've got the knowledge and skill to maintain my own firearms and I am well aware of what causes malfunctions. What's more, I can fix it. I am a huge fan of being your own armorer. it isn't as difficult as some would say. Also, I've been a Glock fanboy longer than I've been a 1911 fanboy, but mostly for the same reasons. I like the trigger system on both guns, and the gigantic aftermarket means I can fix it myself if it goes bad, as mechanical devices sometimes have the tendency to do. Seriously, just buy a 1911 already. I think gunsmithing is fun if you are maintaining one gun. I can see where being an armorer for a group of 1911's could have its..erm...charms.

(Rant off)

Its a good rant and an instructive one. Knowledge and skill trumps hardware. I should live that more.

[JonInWA]

I also think it makes some great points. Individual skill and knowledge (or the access to repositories of knowledge/qualified gunsmiths/parts) can indeed expedite having, or bringing one's weapon of choice to the level of reliability required. But...and this is a big "but" in my experience...a 1911 platform seems to inordonately require the application of expertise and/or parts substitutions out of the box-and departure from the 5" Government size seems to exponentially emphesize this.

While that certainly doesn't mean that a 1911 can't be a reliable, durable weapon of choice, in my opinion a potential user simply has to be cognizant that there's a strong liklihood he or she is about to embark on a journey to achieve that status. And to be truly comitted to the platform, a user really needs to have at least 2, because parts substitutions and/or repairs are pretty much gonna be a gunsmithing sort of thing-1911s (with the possible exception of the new Colt USMC 1911 rail gun) are simply not "plug-and-play" friendly-and 1911s requiring work are likely to be out of the net for some time, due to gunsmithing time requirements and parts acquisition...

A potential user must also be aware that quality magazines are an absolute must, and even with quality magazines there is a liklihood that some judicious choices between quality magazines may need to be made to find which magazines/springs/followers work effectively and consistantly with a given 1911.

Such is achievable-and can be a rewarding anf fulfulling process on a number of levels. but arguably much more so on an individual versus an organizational level-adapting a 1911 platform for an organization in liklihood will demand a disproportionate, and potentially excessive amount of departmental armorers' time, efforts and resources to keep them running. I believe that such is a major factor in some well-known units and LEOs turning away from 1911 and moving to Glocks and other platforms.

Best, Jon

[GJM]

There should be a prospective 1911 owners quiz that needs to be passed prior to purchase. Here a few sample questions:

[45dotACP]

I also think it makes some great points. Individual skill and knowledge (or the access to repositories of knowledge/qualified gunsmiths/parts) can indeed expedite having, or bringing one's weapon of choice to the level of reliability required. But...and this is a big "but" in my experience...a 1911 platform seems to inordonately require the application of expertise and/or parts substitutions out of the box-and departure from the 5" Government size seems to exponentially emphesize this.

While that certainly doesn't mean that a 1911 can't be a reliable, durable weapon of choice, in my opinion a potential user simply has to be cognizant that there's a strong liklihood he or she is about to embark on a journey to achieve that status. And to be truly comitted to the platform, a user really needs to have at least 2, because parts substitutions and/or repairs are pretty much gonna be a gunsmithing sort of thing-1911s (with the possible exception of the new Colt USMC 1911 rail gun) are simply not "plug-and-play" friendly-and 1911s requiring work are likely to be out of the net for some time, due to gunsmithing time requirements and parts acquisition...

A potential user must also be aware that quality magazines are an absolute must, and even with quality magazines there is a liklihood that some judicious choices between quality magazines may need to be made to find which magazines/springs/followers work effectively and consistantly with a given 1911.

Such is achievable-and can be a rewarding anf fulfulling process on a number of levels. but arguably much more so on an individual versus an organizational level-adapting a 1911 platform for an organization in liklihood will demand a disproportionate, and potentially excessive amount of departmental armorers' time, efforts and resources to keep them running. I believe that such is a major factor in some well-known units and LEOs turning away from 1911 and moving to Glocks and other platforms.

Best, Jon

Absolutely agree. From the perspective of an agency, team or otherwise group that requires the maintenance of a large number of guns, the 1911 is not the best choice. It does require more work and more time. It is also heavier, costs twice as much, and holds half of the ammo. Hey, I'll take two! It is a dated design and certainly will show it compared to something like a Glock 17. As an individual choice, it is still not the best choice. There are other guns that hold more ammunition, carry easier, and can be shot just as well (blasphemy of course). But if you take the time to set up a 1911 correctly and pay attention to the mileage, you can run one without a malfunction. I find the biggest resource for me (and other folks in "the life") has been the 10-8 website. I keep close attention to the round count in my 1911, but for the person who doesn't, I would recommend another gun. Also, I wait with baited breath to see the long term reports concerning the Wilson ETM HD/+P flatwire magazines. It may just make the gun more relevant if it lives up to the hype.


Sample questions:
-Do you own a Dremel?
-What is the sign of appropriate extractor tension?
-Can you find the 1911forum on the internet? If so, can you identify the posters who know what the hell they're talking about?
-What magazines will you be using? (Multiple choice)
-Does your cousin Bubba want to "Polish the feed ramp with the aforementioned dremel?"

That's all I can figure out :D

[JHC]

There should be a prospective 1911 owners quiz that needs to be passed prior to purchase. Here a few sample questions:

Exactly. No questions asked. Other than the 4473 maybe. ;)

I'm a simpleton spoiled by solid running 1911s. There's always a back up something. It's not a primary for the OP anyway.

[David Armstrong]

I also think it makes some great points. Individual skill and knowledge (or the access to repositories of knowledge/qualified gunsmiths/parts) can indeed expedite having, or bringing one's weapon of choice to the level of reliability required. But...and this is a big "but" in my experience...a 1911 platform seems to inordonately require the application of expertise and/or parts substitutions out of the box-and departure from the 5" Government size seems to exponentially emphesize this.

While that certainly doesn't mean that a 1911 can't be a reliable, durable weapon of choice, in my opinion a potential user simply has to be cognizant that there's a strong liklihood he or she is about to embark on a journey to achieve that status. And to be truly comitted to the platform, a user really needs to have at least 2, because parts substitutions and/or repairs are pretty much gonna be a gunsmithing sort of thing-1911s (with the possible exception of the new Colt USMC 1911 rail gun) are simply not "plug-and-play" friendly-and 1911s requiring work are likely to be out of the net for some time, due to gunsmithing time requirements and parts acquisition...

A potential user must also be aware that quality magazines are an absolute must, and even with quality magazines there is a liklihood that some judicious choices between quality magazines may need to be made to find which magazines/springs/followers work effectively and consistantly with a given 1911.

Such is achievable-and can be a rewarding anf fulfulling process on a number of levels. but arguably much more so on an individual versus an organizational level-adapting a 1911 platform for an organization in liklihood will demand a disproportionate, and potentially excessive amount of departmental armorers' time, efforts and resources to keep them running. I believe that such is a major factor in some well-known units and LEOs turning away from 1911 and moving to Glocks and other platforms.

Best, Jon
QFT. To me that is the sum of the issue and what I was trying to convey earlier, but Jon did it much better. Like it or not, today the 1911 is a crapshoot NIB. I good one is great, but getting to the good may be a long and painful experience. When I started shooting 1911's in the 60s and 70s I used Colt guns and they all worked fine. Heck, I spent a few years trusting my life to a LW Commander without a second thought. Since then it seems that it seems it has just become too problematic.:(

[JeffJ]

David,
Out of curiosity, how much did a new Colt cost in the 60s and 70s?

[JonInWA]

You'd really need to index the answer to the comparative cost of living index for it to be meaningful.

Best, Jon

[JeffJ]

That's where I was going, but I don't have a ton of time right now and couldn't find any historical pricing from that time period in the few minutes that I spent looking for it.

[JonInWA]

I'll try to give an attempt of a serious question list to a prospective 1911 owner:

Have you seriously researched out the pros and cons of the specific 1911(s) you're considering?

Will you be using the 1911 chosen for duty, back-up or civilian concealed carry, as a range-only or competition-only gun, and are you aware how these individual use niches can affect your decision process?

If it's to be a dedicated duty gun platform, are you prepared to buy a second 1911 if your primary is down for maintenance/repair?

In addition to the manufacturer-supplied magazines, do you have at least 4 quality 1911 magazines, and are you aware that you might have to try several quality magazines from several different quality manufacturers to achieve adequate consistent performance with your specific 1911(s)?

Before counting on the gun as a duty gun/concealed carry defensive pistol, do you have 500-1000 rounds of quality factory ammunition available to insure proper functioning of the gun and magazines-and after that's successfully accomplished, do you have 50-100 rounds (at least) of your carry ammunition of choice to run through the gun before using for duty/carry?

Do you have a competent gunsmith/armorer on tap that you can access, and are you aware of his turn-around times?

Do you know how to field-strip, clean and lubricate a 1911?

Have you read Hilton Yam's articles at www.10-8performance.com on choosing, running and maintaining a 1911?

Those are some of my initial thoughts.

Best, Jon

[jholen]

I'd just like to add a big +1 to Hilton's information on the 10-8 website. Read that a good three or four times before finally getting my 1911. I also invested in his recommended tool kit and adopted his maintenance schedule, method of field stripping and dis-assembly, as well as following fairly closely to his recommended cleaners, though I decided on mil-comm for everything and Froglube for rust protection (and not lubrication).

His tool kit and all cleaning products/etc came to around $200 or so, give or take, but it was worth it to me. Why learn on your own, when you can learn from his wisdom, mistakes, and experience. Worth it to me.

[Tom]

[Out of curiosity, how much did a new Colt cost in the 60s and 70s?]

My Gold Cup cost $125 in 1969. Armand Swenson charged $65 for work he did on it.

Best regards,

[klewis]

So, since we're here, and Todd has encouraged us all to blaspheme (as Tam put it), how does changing the gun to a 9mm effect reliability? Are shorter guns (commanders, officers) still less reliable, even though cartridge length has been shortened along with the slide, or does that help make up for less cycle time? Anyone with experience with 9mm 1911s in various sizes (other than the obvious) want to chime in?

[JAD]

I'll try to give an attempt of a serious question list to a prospective 1911 owner:
?



I don't see how any of those questions wouldn't apply to any platform*. Which, I guess, makes the point rather well.

*i guess you'd have to swap Yam for like Duncan Long or something. Incidentally, if one is interested in reading about fit, function, and maintenance of a 1911, there's this guy named Kuhnhausen, but you have to pay for his books.

[WilsonCombatRep]

Just to add to Bill's salient points.

Friction is the enemy of finely fitted, old school guns like the 1911 and P-35 and the pieces must be well lubricated if they are tightly fitted or bind anywhere.
If they are loose you can lube them with nearly anything. Notice the lack of friction in "modern" service pistols due to small slide/frame bearing surface etc etc.

All the discussion about "Magazines" also assumes that the rest of the piece is also within spec. If you use 8 or 10rd magazines your pistols feedway must be squarely within the design parameters for good function. If you use a 7rd magazine your barrel/frame ramp can be less than perfect since there is less of a tendency for the 7rd mag to induce a "nose down" during the feeding cycle. Also remember the most reliable magazine is a 1 round magazine...every time you add a round to a 1911 magazine the nose tips down slightly and strikes the ramp lower on the frame.

But wait! My old 1943 Colt is dead nuts reliable.....Yes it is! For these reasons above. The 1911 never had the reputation as a jam-a-matic or "king of the feedway stoppage" until the 1970's. Think about it. The 1911 was always considered an incredibly reliable service weapon until people changed it. Gunsmiths made it tighter. Magazine makers added an extra round to the magazine changing the angle of attack of the top round. Shooters wanted the triggers lighter and crisper. Smith's hard fitted the barrel and tightened the slide frame fit and no matter how smoothly polished, induced more friction into the system.

The USGI 1911A1 has a 7rd magazine with a tapered lips and a narrow but properly angled feedramp that was gauged within spec (like every other part on the gun) and less friction in the system than most "tightly fitted" guns of the current era is 100% reliable across any terrain, temperature and conditions. It also shoots 3-5" ransom rest groups at 25 yards and 6-10" groups at 50. That is unacceptable for "Modern pistoleros" who buy 1911's so...

The art and science of the 1911 over the past 30 years has been focused on building a 1"-3" gun at 50 yards that is absolutely reliable when properly lubricated using quality magazines and ammo.
Along the way there have been hundreds of parts vendors trying to "improve" things. Some good. Some not so good. Some downright negligent.

It is possible to build a stone reliable 1-2" 50 yard gun. Inject excessive friction into the environment, or excessive slide velocity, swollen/split cases, weak magazine springs, or just the wrong lube on a cold day and you are back to square one. Parts failure on a 1911 is exceedingly rare. The gun suffers from spring failure more often than parts failure since the original designer likely never conceived of the round counts modern shooters would put through the design...hence the new look at more efficient springs like the flatwire..

[DocGKR]

Well said. I am quite happy with a reliable, durable, robust pistol that can shoot 3" at 25 yds...

[Slavex]

I think most shooters would be happy to group 3" at 25 yds, regardless of the pistol they used.

Really great post from WilsonCombatRep, thanks.

[Gary1911A1]

[Out of curiosity, how much did a new Colt cost in the 60s and 70s?]

My Gold Cup cost $125 in 1969. Armand Swenson charged $65 for work he did on it.

Best regards,

I remember mine costing $185 in 1971. I should of sent it to Swenson, but couldn't get the money then as I was starting college.

[BLR]

I'll try to give an attempt of a serious question list to a prospective 1911 owner:

Have you seriously researched out the pros and cons of the specific 1911(s) you're considering?

Will you be using the 1911 chosen for duty, back-up or civilian concealed carry, as a range-only or competition-only gun, and are you aware how these individual use niches can affect your decision process?

If it's to be a dedicated duty gun platform, are you prepared to buy a second 1911 if your primary is down for maintenance/repair?

In addition to the manufacturer-supplied magazines, do you have at least 4 quality 1911 magazines, and are you aware that you might have to try several quality magazines from several different quality manufacturers to achieve adequate consistent performance with your specific 1911(s)?

Before counting on the gun as a duty gun/concealed carry defensive pistol, do you have 500-1000 rounds of quality factory ammunition available to insure proper functioning of the gun and magazines-and after that's successfully accomplished, do you have 50-100 rounds (at least) of your carry ammunition of choice to run through the gun before using for duty/carry?

Do you have a competent gunsmith/armorer on tap that you can access, and are you aware of his turn-around times?

Do you know how to field-strip, clean and lubricate a 1911?

Have you read Hilton Yam's articles at www.10-8performance.com on choosing, running and maintaining a 1911?

Those are some of my initial thoughts.

Best, Jon

And I find nothing to argue with in that. Excellent.


On the gunsmith/armorer - I really think there is a market for a good 1911 pistolsmith that isn't all about $6k "hard use art."

Think the old 1* guns from Yo-Bo.

[John Ralston]

And I find nothing to argue with in that. Excellent.


On the gunsmith/armorer - I really think there is a market for a good 1911 pistolsmith that isn't all about $6k "hard use art."

Think the old 1* guns from Yo-Bo.

There's a reason the 1* guns aren't being made any more...a smith of a certain caliber will be in such high demand from those who want "The Best" that it makes little sense to offer anything less. The current 1* equivalent guns come from Wilson, Nighthawk and the Springfield Custom Shop and cost whatever they say it does with the options chosen (and those will likely be built by one of the many builders on hand...and probably not the top guy in the shop).

In my opinion, no really great 1911 smith aspires to produce the best, cheap 1911.

[JonInWA]

There's a reason the 1* guns aren't being made any more...a smith of a certain caliber will be in such high demand from those who want "The Best" that it makes little sense to offer anything less. The current 1* equivalent guns come from Wilson, Nighthawk and the Springfield Custom Shop and cost whatever they say it does with the options chosen (and those will likely be built by one of the many builders on hand...and probably not the top guy in the shop).

In my opinion, no really great 1911 smith aspires to produce the best, cheap 1911.

Ergo the Glock...

Best, Jon

[John Ralston]

Ergo the Glock...

Best, Jon

Yup

[fixer]

Happily!

P35s have two things going for them:

1. The magazine, much like the 7 round GI 1911, sits nearly perfectly in the middle of the machines design envelope (first thru last round). In other words, the magazine for the first round and the last round provide enough magazine thrust to make sure the round is position correctly within the designed slide velocity. Additionally, the feed lips are designed with the correct amount of retention to allow the extractor the correct amount of grip prior to fully stripping the round. I, and my friends at S&W, HK, and Sig, agree - the best example of proper magazine-gun positioning are P35s and mil spec 1911s with mil spec 7 round magazines. This point is what determines, to a significant degree, the mechanical reliability of a magazine fed weapon. .
.

Bill,

Thanks very much for the insight here. I was wondering if you have any technical input on the 92 in terms of the functions you mention here.

Nevermind...just saw your other thread.

[Mark]

I'll try to give an attempt of a serious question list to a prospective 1911 owner:

Have you seriously researched out the pros and cons of the specific 1911(s) you're considering?

Will you be using the 1911 chosen for duty, back-up or civilian concealed carry, as a range-only or competition-only gun, and are you aware how these individual use niches can affect your decision process?

If it's to be a dedicated duty gun platform, are you prepared to buy a second 1911 if your primary is down for maintenance/repair?

In addition to the manufacturer-supplied magazines, do you have at least 4 quality 1911 magazines, and are you aware that you might have to try several quality magazines from several different quality manufacturers to achieve adequate consistent performance with your specific 1911(s)?

Before counting on the gun as a duty gun/concealed carry defensive pistol, do you have 500-1000 rounds of quality factory ammunition available to insure proper functioning of the gun and magazines-and after that's successfully accomplished, do you have 50-100 rounds (at least) of your carry ammunition of choice to run through the gun before using for duty/carry?

Do you have a competent gunsmith/armorer on tap that you can access, and are you aware of his turn-around times?

Do you know how to field-strip, clean and lubricate a 1911?

Have you read Hilton Yam's articles at www.10-8performance.com on choosing, running and maintaining a 1911?

Those are some of my initial thoughts.

Best, Jon

I did this with a Springfield Range Officer, worked out just fine and after a sight change to Dawson FO front/Harrison Fixed U-Notch rear, it cost me right at $950. It's yet to record a stoppage with any ammo, from frangible and mixed range ball/hollow point to premium defensive ammo (Federal HST 230 grain) in a bit over a year of use. It has also weathered the past year in an exposed duty holster and the parkerized finish has performed fine. The gun is very accurate and smooth with no perceived slop. I'm not sure what else the gun is supposed to do to prove itself. It does everything my HK's and M&P's did.....just faster and more accurately. Faster initial shot, faster follow up shot (documented by a shot timer, granted this is specific to my physiology). I understand capacity but I'm also a big believer that the first 9 shots are probably a whole lot more important then the second 9. During my tour in investigations, I had the experience of being involved in OIS investigations (thank God have yet to have one myself) and of course general homicide/shootings and I've yet to see one that involved a magazine change. I think situations like the N. Hollywood shootout are exceedingly rare to the point where it's best to go with what will give you the best performance in that first second or two.

I also think you should shoot what you like, be it a Glock or a 1911. In High School I played both Basketball and Football. I was good at both, liked football but loved basketball. I noticed in my sophomore year that my Dad was encouraging Basketball more which was weird because he is a huge football guy. I asked him why and he simply pointed out that he could see I loved basketball but liked football and he believe that you'll always do better and go further with something you love then something you like. I think he's right and I think there's an application there for guns as well.

[David Armstrong]

David,
Out of curiosity, how much did a new Colt cost in the 60s and 70s?
Really??? I'm getting old and forgetful and sometimes can't remember where I put my shoes yesterday!:D
FWIW, my point is not a price issue but a quality control and reliability issue. A factory standard gun should be a factory standard gun and it should meet a particular standard of reliability. That is what I am basing comments on. How does the random firearm picked up and used out of the box serve its purpose.
ETA: I read the WilsonCOmbat post and think that may be it. Too many people have wanted the 1911 to be something it isn't, thus the changes in the gun at such a basic level that have led to improved accuracy at the expense of stone-cold reliability.

[Vinh]

I liked the idea of the Yo-Bo guns back when there was only a three month wait, but they weren't exactly cheap. I don't recall any of mine coming in under $2K, and I remember a lot of bickering about whether WC, NHC, EB, LB, etc were better values in the $2-3K price range.

[Tamara]

On the gunsmith/armorer - I really think there is a market for a good 1911 pistolsmith that isn't all about $6k "hard use art."

Think the old 1* guns from Yo-Bo.

When I took that Awerbuck handgun class back in '09, Ken Campbell's son was in the class, shooting a well-worn Yost GSP he got from his dad. I have rarely felt such avarice for a piece of ironmongery.

[Matt O]

You don't need to spend $2500 for a good, reliable 1911.

You don't need a reliability package right out of the gate for good quality 1911s. Think NM Loadeds, XSEs, and up.

$1300 buys you a good 1911, with a reliability package. Not a Rogers/Yost/etc gun. But you don't need that.

Bill, out of curiosity, of the examples you listed here for a mid-range out-of-the-box good quality 1911 meant to be run hard, would you have a preference or recommendation based on experience? Any thoughts on Series 70 vs 80 and how that impacts reliability (if at all)?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I have next to no experience with 1911's, but have always been interested in owning one. Might be a good excuse to try out single-stack USPSA.

[GJM]

When I took that Awerbuck handgun class back in '09, Ken Campbell's son was in the class, shooting a well-worn Yost GSP he got from his dad. I have rarely felt such avarice for a piece of ironmongery.

I sold Ken a Gunsite tuned lightweight Commander in the mid 90's, and last I checked he was still regularly EDC'ing it.

[45dotACP]

Too many people have wanted the 1911 to be something it isn't, thus the changes in the gun at such a basic level that have led to improved accuracy at the expense of stone-cold reliability.

I hear that. I look at it like this...A popular design leads to bunch of manufacturers to hit on the same concept, their methods of accomplishing that concept can result in some guns working and other guns not working. I mean look at all the copies (okay not exactly copies, but similar concepts) that were made of Glock.

Remember how the Caracal turned out. Or perhaps we should just not mention the S&W Sigma... :D

just my .02

[ScotchMan]

So what the kitten you gonna do?

Buy a Colt XSE, have absolutely no expectations, and shoot the snot out of it.

[ScotchMan]

This thread has exceeded my wildest hopes. Thanks everyone for your valuable replies. I too am curious about the extreme hypotheticals regarding the combination of quality magazines with guns previously thought of as poor. Does something change if you put such magazines in an Officer's or Commander's gun? What about the cheapest $300 5" 1911? There has to be a line somewhere right?

[JSGlock34]

I've been flirting with picking up a few of the Wilson ETM/HD +P magazines to try out, and this thread may put me over the edge.

I'll just sound one note of caution regarding parts durability on some of the more affordable 1911s. The only weapon disabling parts breakage I've experienced on a pistol was with a relatively low round count (under 2000 rounds) Smith and Wesson 1911, which was my first (but not last) foray into 1911s. During a string of fire, the magazine (a Wilson 47D - the S&W originally shipped with Wilson magazines) suddenly dropped right out of the magazine well. Figuring I had somehow failed to seat the magazine, I quickly inserted a new magazine into the well and returned to firing, only to have that one fly right out as well. At this point I stopped and closely inspected the weapon only to find that the magazine release was no longer exhibiting any tension, and shortly thereafter it fell right out of the pistol, having split into two pieces. Clearly the magazine release was defective, and to their credit, S&W shipped a replacement part immediately, no questions asked. Still, after that experience I replaced the magazine release with a quality part from another manufacturer (and later sold the pistol).

The S&W was not a bargain 1911, but even at that price point (~$800) there were some compromises to keep costs down. I suspect that the even cheaper 1911s are cutting corners on major components.

[BLR]

I've been flirting with picking up a few of the Wilson ETM/HD +P magazines to try out, and this thread may put me over the edge.

I'll just sound one note of caution regarding parts durability on some of the more affordable 1911s. The only weapon disabling parts breakage I've experienced on a pistol was with a relatively low round count (under 2000 rounds) Smith and Wesson 1911, which was my first (but not last) foray into 1911s. During a string of fire, the magazine (a Wilson 47D - the S&W originally shipped with Wilson magazines) suddenly dropped right out of the magazine well. Figuring I had somehow failed to seat the magazine, I quickly inserted a new magazine into the well and returned to firing, only to have that one fly right out as well. At this point I stopped and closely inspected the weapon only to find that the magazine release was no longer exhibiting any tension, and shortly thereafter it fell right out of the pistol, having split into two pieces. Clearly the magazine release was defective, and to their credit, S&W shipped a replacement part immediately, no questions asked. Still, after that experience I replaced the magazine release with a quality part from another manufacturer (and later sold the pistol).

The S&W was not a bargain 1911, but even at that price point (~$800) there were some compromises to keep costs down. I suspect that the even cheaper 1911s are cutting corners on major components.

$800 doesn't buy you much in an all metal pistol.

[Tamara]

$800 doesn't buy you much in an all metal pistol.

It could if it was designed to make use of stampings as much as possible.

[BLR]

It could if it was designed to make use of stampings as much as possible.

The handgun equivalent of high Nitrate bacon.

[Tamara]

The handgun equivalent of high Nitrate bacon.

For a left-brain engineering type, your right brain inner hedonistic aesthete sure does get let into the decision loop a lot. ;)


And yes, I know the whole "left brain, right brain" thing is a myth, but that's not funny.

[Gary1911A1]

There's good MIM and bad MIM. The Springfield Professional has MIM in it and if the FBI was having problems with much breakage of small parts we would hear about it. Then again it's not a $800 1911 either.

[BLR]

For a left-brain engineering type, your right brain inner hedonistic aesthete sure does get let into the decision loop a lot. ;)


And yes, I know the whole "left brain, right brain" thing is a myth, but that's not funny.


Yes. Yes it does. Hedonistic Bill might even control the decision loop...

[45dotACP]

$800 doesn't buy you much in an all metal pistol.

Probably because the external extractor. I heard of a guy who had an external extractor 1911...he fired a round, but it exploded in his hand, but bullet killed his dog and a spark from the muzzle flash caught his clothes on fire.

True story :P

[NETim]

Speaking of fires, I remember reading a tale related by some gunwriter guy who was testing a blackpowder pistol of some kind at an old Army pistol range.


First round downrange, the black powder flash and trash ignited the decades' worth of Bullseye that had accumulated on the range deck. A very intense and a very brief fire was the result as he told it.

[JSGlock34]

$800 doesn't buy you much in an all metal pistol.

Exactly the point. You get what you pay for. I also think the $600-$800 price zone is one of the most contested - and confusing - ranges for consumers who are entering the 1911 market. Here is where we see many recognizable brands with their own strong pistol designs looking to gain a share of 1911 sales...Remington, Ruger, Smith and Wesson, SIG, etc. Established 1911 companies are also well entrenched here - Kimber, Springfield Armory, etc. So buyers see recognized and trusted brand names offering 1911s that appear to have high end features at an attractive price point - or at least a price point comparable to higher end polymer pistols (the P30 leaps to mind). Very much like the flood of companies stamping their name on AR15s, you end up with a mix. The AR15 community often uses the TDP and MILSPEC standards to try to separate the wheat from the chaff; figuring that out with 1911s is less intuitive. Even across a single company's lineup (such as Springfield) it is hard to parse out what is exactly different between different models in their lineup.

In many ways, I think this is why Colt remains a better bet be it a 6920 or a 1911 - you can be confident that they are building to a standard.

[Tamara]

Exactly the point. I also think the $600-$800 price zone is one of the most contested - and confusing - ranges for consumers who are entering the 1911 market. Here is where we see many recognizable brands with their own strong pistol designs looking to gain a share of 1911 sales...Remington, Ruger, Smith and Wesson, SIG, etc. Established 1911 companies are also well entrenched here - Kimber, Springfield Armory, etc. So buyers see recognized and trusted brand names offering 1911s that appear to have high end features at an attractive price point - or at least a price point comparable to higher end polymer pistols (the P30 leaps to mind). Very much like the flood of companies stamping their name on AR15s, you end up with a mix. The AR15 community often uses the TDP and MILSPEC standards to try to separate the wheat from the chaff; figuring that out with 1911s is less intuitive. Even across a single company's lineup (such as Springfield) it is hard to parse out what is exactly different between different models in their lineup.

In many ways, I think this is why Colt remains a better bet be it a 6920 or a 1911 - you can be confident that they are building to a standard.

That was a very neat "quick and dirty" summation of that situation. Golf clap, dude.

[Tamara]

First round downrange, the black powder flash and trash ignited the decades' worth of Bullseye that had accumulated on the range deck. A very intense and a very brief fire was the result as he told it.

Range fires are no joke. Not just unburnt powder, but unswept ranges often have bunches of paper dust shot off targets. You don't need a smoke pole to set that stuff off. Ask Glock USA.

[LSP972]

Ask Glock USA.

Or S&W. They had a hum-dinger of one in 1978.

.

[knedrgr]

As with anything mechanical; it can and will fail you. But if you're proactive at maintaining it, it'll last you a lifetime.

The 1911 have its weaknesses, but its a hell of a pistol. Like others had mentioned, it was designed as a 5" gun that runs on FMJ 45 ACPs. Once you deviate from the original design, things must be adjusted accordingly.

The owner must know the areas of weakness and make sure he/she keeps an eye on those areas. One of the most critical area that I've fail to see mentioned is the firing pin stop. This small part plays an important roll in the gun's. that flat little piece of metal not only keeps the firing pin in the slide, but it also holds the extractor in place. A loose firing FPS can cause havoc to the function of the gun. Not only can it slide down and eject the FP, but it can also cause feeding and ejection problems. How you ask? A loose fitting FPS will let the extractor clock in the slide, thus allowing it to not feed nor eject the round correctly.

If you don't understand the working of a 1911, then take it to a smith and have it properly maintain. And if you know the working, then make sure weak areas are properly maintain.