Random Thoughts on Pistols

[BLR]

1. The 1911 and Glock are the best designed guns out there. This is subjective, feel free to disagree. I consider the 1911 a rebuild-able item, and the Glock a throw away item. The 1911 is a marvel of efficiency of design, as is the Glock. I'll give the nod to ease of disassembly to the 1911. The Glock trigger itself is a bit of a PITA. Economy of function is an art, and JMB was a master.
2. 90% of reliability is the magazine. That is the reason "Modern 9mms" like the P35 226, 17, and 92 are so amazingly reliable.
3. 2000 round challenges is more a test of ammunition, in my opinion. Again, feel free to disagree. If a gun goes through 1 complete magazine, mechanical reliability (making some assumptions here, so keep your panties on), it will likely go through thousands.
4. You shouldn't call yourself a "gun builder" "gunsmith" or even a "part time tinkerer" if you haven't actually welded and recut frame rails YOURSELF or recut a feed ramp on a mill. How did this even get started? It's just not honest of the people doing it. If you can't use a sine bar, an index table, or own a surface plate, don't call yourself a gunsmith. Running a little hand held belt sander doesn't cut it, no pun intended.
5. Browning tilt barrel pistols are nearly universally very, very reliable guns, provided some modicum of care was taken in construction.
6. Most of the "more modern" designs are significantly more complicated than the 1911. This opinion comes from spending the last couple months detail stripping and inspecting CZs, SIGs, M&Ps, 3rd Gens, and HKs. Again, feel free to disagree. Hair thin springs, pins less than 1/8" long, contorted assembly. No thanks. One too many trips to Brownells to get replacement springs and pins lost in the carpet.
7. 95% of 1911 problems are shooter or gunsmith related. Maybe more. Last weekend, I watched someone have massive trouble shooting their Commander. I asked to try it. Loaded two magazines with my ammo, 2 mags w/o even a hint of problem. Tested 10 rounds of his stuff, 3 failed to go into a chamber gauge. Don't shoot crap ammo through good guns with good chambers and blame the gun or design.
8. The best gunsmiths, regardless of whether we are talking about pistols, rifles or shotguns, have a plan before they even tough a file, mill or die grinder. The best of the best draw out what they are going to do. And they actually work to numbers, not "feel."

[orionz06]

Agree so much. Tired of seeing people who melt frames with a hot screwdriver and swap out connectors being called gunsmiths.

[JHC]

Pretty interesting.

But why throw a Glock away when it is so easy and CHEAP to snap in new legos and rebuild it?

[orionz06]

Pretty interesting.

But why throw a Glock away when it is so easy and CHEAP to snap in new legos and rebuild it?

He's swimming in Brawndo money.

[BLR]

He's swimming in Brawndo money.

HAHAH!!! Yeah, that's true.

Why chuck a G-Lock? They are cheap. Get a new one!

[Kyle Reese]

Where does the FNS rate on your scale?

[BLR]

I can shoot that gun amazingly well. Very highly. It has 1 pin that is a mutha to drive in and out. I replaced Johnny Boy's with roll pin. Works fine.

I really like the FNS. It needs tuning and trigger work.

[Kyle Reese]

I can shoot that gun amazingly well. Very highly. It has 1 pin that is a mutha to drive in and out. I replaced Johnny Boy's with roll pin. Works fine.

I really like the FNS. It needs tuning and trigger work.

Mine will have 3,000 rounds thru it by next week, and have found that the trigger hasn't smoothed out as much as I thought it would at this point. It's improved since BNIB, but only marginally. I guess that has to do with the trigger / striker movement relationship.

[EVP]

I agree especially about the 2000 round challenge. I think a majority of people overlook ammo quality.

[GardoneVT]

It is often said today that we live in an age where the average cellphone is smarter then the average person. The same principle seems to hold true regarding firearms.Once ,I field stripped a 1911 before purchase to ensure there were no obvious defects in the weapon.

I put the piece back together only to be addresed with the following :" youre the only customer ive seen whos taken one of those apart and got it back together again"

!!!!!???

The disconcerting part was that it was the owner who said it, and hes been in business since the 80's.

[BLR]

Mine will have 3,000 rounds thru it by next week, and have found that the trigger hasn't smoothed out as much as I thought it would at this point. It's improved since BNIB, but only marginally. I guess that has to do with the trigger / striker movement relationship.

Yup. Send me the sear assembly and striker and I can fix that.

[Clobbersaurus]

I thought you might mention the P35 before the Glock, interesting....

[BLR]

I thought you might mention the P35 before the Glock, interesting....

Nope. The P35, in it's current iteration, is a tinkerers gun. It needs work. Mag well, mag safety, sear/hammer, thumb safety, and so on to be at that level, IMO. YMMV.

[JHC]

HAHAH!!! Yeah, that's true.

Why chuck a G-Lock? They are cheap. Get a new one!

OK well in addition to liking burnt bacon and preferring dry red wine with a steak . . . I get very attached to my Glocks. Really. I did have a favorite stolen once and it only hurt about a day but I'm like that with most losses.

[Savage Hands]

I'm wondering what kind of work you'd do to a Gen 4 G19 besides the finish if I sent you one Bill?

[Jeep]

HAHAH!!! Yeah, that's true.

Why chuck a G-Lock? They are cheap. Get a new one!

Cheap is good. Reliable and cheap is even better. Light, reliable and cheap is better still.

On the other hand . . . there is nothing like a 1911 trigger.

[tomr]

Borrowed a friends Marvel conversion at last nights BE match. Things just flowed. 22 felt good and familiar and that energy just carried into the 45. Sorta like ol home week. Cant figger out why anyone shoots 2000 rds before cleaning. Don't you like to see how things are looking on the inside? Do you kick your dog?

[EVP]

I'm wondering what kind of work you'd do to a Gen 4 G19 besides the finish...

Along the same lines of Shenaniguns question.

I am curious as to why can't anyone make Glock trigger components that are of a higher quality and reliability then OEM? Is there a reason why this has not or can not be accomplished?

[DocGKR]

You have to clean them?

I thought we were just supposed to shoot and lubricate...

[JHC]

You have to clean them?

I thought we were just supposed to shoot and lubricate...

Nice. :D

[JonInWA]

Along the same lines of Shenaniguns question.

I am curious as to why can't anyone make Glock trigger components that are of a higher quality and reliability then OEM? Is there a reason why this has not or can not be accomplished?

Um, why?

Best, Jon

[SAWBONES]

So, what about DA revolvers?

Agree re: magazines, agree re: JMB's genius, agree re: properly set-up 1911s.

Not sure how Glock managed to get it right early on, and so quickly, with their 9mm models (alien intelligence? :D), but they definitely did, at least for that caliber.

[Savage Hands]

Um, why?

Best, Jon


Because #merica

[EVP]

Um, why?

Best, Jon

That's the question.

Yes, I can and do shoot my Glocks with OEM components. But I think many people look for a little more refinement in trigger characteristics. There is a decent amount of places that offer aftermarket trigger components. That alone supports the idea of people wanting more out of Glock triggers. But that is another topic and I don't want to drift the thread.

[tomr]

You have to clean them?

I thought we were just supposed to shoot and lubricate...

Have to? That matter?

[JHC]

That's the question.

Yes, I can and do shoot my Glocks with OEM components. But I think many people look for a little more refinement in trigger characteristics. There is a decent amount of places that offer aftermarket trigger components. That alone supports the idea of people wanting more out of Glock triggers. But that is another topic and I don't want to drift the thread.


I will because it's a pretty open ended title to the OP!!! ;)

There are several aftermarket Glock trigger set ups that provide huge amounts of refinement if that means lighter more crisp breaks etc. I've handed some that felt pure SA good.

But whether they are extremely light or just smoother or what not - they may not deliver the goods in ruggedness. I've dry fired the "minus minus" and it's much lighter than a minus but I've head it didn't pan out as CAG reliable. So I heard.

TLG liked one of the aftermarket connectors during his Gen 4 G17 enduro but it snapped on him.

Bruce Gray commented last week on other forum discussing the VP9 complexity about how Glock has simplicity by the bushel and gives up some refinement to that end.

Doesn't refinement in the context of pistol triggers usually come at a cost of longevity? I just had David Sams reduce the feathery trigger on my 1911, the slide of which had started to follow on reloads. It was highly refined. I spec'd it up to 5 lbs to suit my tastes and habituation to that poundage in starting to prep a trigger setting on index. It's exactly 5 and crisp but is that less refined?

[45dotACP]

1. The 1911 and Glock are the best designed guns out there. This is subjective, feel free to disagree. I consider the 1911 a rebuild-able item, and the Glock a throw away item. The 1911 is a marvel of efficiency of design, as is the Glock. I'll give the nod to ease of disassembly to the 1911. The Glock trigger itself is a bit of a PITA. Economy of function is an art, and JMB was a master.
2. 90% of reliability is the magazine. That is the reason "Modern 9mms" like the P35 226, 17, and 92 are so amazingly reliable.
3. 2000 round challenges is more a test of ammunition, in my opinion. Again, feel free to disagree. If a gun goes through 1 complete magazine, mechanical reliability (making some assumptions here, so keep your panties on), it will likely go through thousands.
4. You shouldn't call yourself a "gun builder" "gunsmith" or even a "part time tinkerer" if you haven't actually welded and recut frame rails YOURSELF or recut a feed ramp on a mill. How did this even get started? It's just not honest of the people doing it. If you can't use a sine bar, an index table, or own a surface plate, don't call yourself a gunsmith. Running a little hand held belt sander doesn't cut it, no pun intended.
5. Browning tilt barrel pistols are nearly universally very, very reliable guns, provided some modicum of care was taken in construction.
6. Most of the "more modern" designs are significantly more complicated than the 1911. This opinion comes from spending the last couple months detail stripping and inspecting CZs, SIGs, M&Ps, 3rd Gens, and HKs. Again, feel free to disagree. Hair thin springs, pins less than 1/8" long, contorted assembly. No thanks. One too many trips to Brownells to get replacement springs and pins lost in the carpet.
7. 95% of 1911 problems are shooter or gunsmith related. Maybe more. Last weekend, I watched someone have massive trouble shooting their Commander. I asked to try it. Loaded two magazines with my ammo, 2 mags w/o even a hint of problem. Tested 10 rounds of his stuff, 3 failed to go into a chamber gauge. Don't shoot crap ammo through good guns with good chambers and blame the gun or design.
8. The best gunsmiths, regardless of whether we are talking about pistols, rifles or shotguns, have a plan before they even tough a file, mill or die grinder. The best of the best draw out what they are going to do. And they actually work to numbers, not "feel."

Was trying to find a single quote that I liked more than the others....didn't work.

[EVP]

And that's my point/question JHC.

There are many options out there but why does it come at the cost of reliability? Is there something with the design of the trigger system of Glocks that they don't tolerate certain things well or is it just the lack of quality and engineering(if any)of the various aftermarket providers?

I understand the platform differences but for example, look at what Apex did with the M&P line. They make parts that are of a higher quality then OEM parts. They work/function and improve trigger characteristics.

[Mr_White]

Very interesting post, Bill, thank you!

[JonInWA]

Bill, unless I'm in an alternate universe and totally misreading you, regarding your Point #2, I'm a bit surprised that you consider a 1911 easier to disassemble (and I'm covering both field-stripping and detailed disassembly) than a Glock. I consider a Glock both easier and much faster for both; a local LEO that was until recently running/issueing both Glocks and 1911s required double the armor time to be spent on annual detailed disassembly on their 1911s (Kimber) vs their Glocks (which reportedly was one of the main reasons they went purely to Glock a year or so back) Was this a test question? Did I just win a prize?

Best, Jon

[KevinB]

Detail strip down to subcomponents - 1911 over Glock for ease.

# of times / rd required to strip Glock WELL over 1911.

I mean come on, I build a 1911 in Iraq with nothing more than a dremel, file kit, drill press and a Aussie Assaulter who had once been a machinist (assisting in barrel/slide/bushing fit).
Provided quality parts (and understand drop in for 1911 means 2-3 hours [per part] measuring and fitting) its not hard to do (hood trimming can be a bear without proper tooling).

Glock is drop in - or junk it, not really rebuildable in the old world sense.


Also a well built 1911 can be taken down much like a BHP

[PPGMD]

Agree so much. Tired of seeing people who melt frames with a hot screwdriver and swap out connectors being called gunsmiths.

There has always been a level between user and gunsmith that few use out of agencies, armorer. Most "gunsmiths" fall into that category.

But to a large majority of the shooting public, anyone that is willing to delve into a gun beyond a basic field strip is a "gunsmith." It doesn't help that most shops call their armorers "gunsmiths."

[LittleLebowski]

Bill, unless I'm in an alternate universe and totally misreading you, regarding your Point #2, I'm a bit surprised that you consider a 1911 easier to disassemble (and I'm covering both field-stripping and detailed disassembly) than a Glock. I consider a Glock both easier and much faster for both; a local LEO that was until recently running/issueing both Glocks and 1911s required double the armor time to be spent on annual detailed disassembly on their 1911s (Kimber) vs their Glocks (which reportedly was one of the main reasons they went purely to Glock a year or so back) Was this a test question? Did I just win a prize?

Best, Jon

Same here.

[Crow Hunter]

Bill, unless I'm in an alternate universe and totally misreading you, regarding your Point #2, I'm a bit surprised that you consider a 1911 easier to disassemble (and I'm covering both field-stripping and detailed disassembly) than a Glock. I consider a Glock both easier and much faster for both; a local LEO that was until recently running/issueing both Glocks and 1911s required double the armor time to be spent on annual detailed disassembly on their 1911s (Kimber) vs their Glocks (which reportedly was one of the main reasons they went purely to Glock a year or so back) Was this a test question? Did I just win a prize?

Best, Jon

In my experience Glocks are much faster.

Especially if you forget which direction the bushing is supposed to rotate. :o

Or you spend 5 min leaning the slide back and forth to figure out where the link is so you can line it up with the slide stop hole...:o

Not saying I have done this before....:cool:

[Jeep]

In my experience Glocks are much faster.

Especially if you forget which direction the bushing is supposed to rotate. :o

Or you spend 5 min leaning the slide back and forth to figure out where the link is so you can line it up with the slide stop hole...:o

Not saying I have done this before....:cool:

I too deny having done any of those things but I too find Glocks much easier to detail strip. Heck, if I can detail strip then rapidly, anyone can. And if you can detail strip a Glock you can rebuild it (unless, I suppose, if the rails are gone).

[JodyH]

If a gun goes through 1 complete magazine, mechanical reliability (making some assumptions here, so keep your panties on), it will likely go through thousands.
Yea... you're making a LOT of assumptions.
My time on the range watching hundreds of shooters shooting thousands of rounds has proven those assumptions incorrect dozens of times.

[JHC]

And that's my point/question JHC.

There are many options out there but why does it come at the cost of reliability? Is there something with the design of the trigger system of Glocks that they don't tolerate certain things well or is it just the lack of quality and engineering(if any)of the various aftermarket providers?

I understand the platform differences but for example, look at what Apex did with the M&P line. They make parts that are of a higher quality then OEM parts. They work/function and improve trigger characteristics.

Yeah I see what you mean. Randy Lee used to concentrate on making super Glock 24s for competitors. I wonder what those were like.

[BWT]

Bill, unless I'm in an alternate universe and totally misreading you, regarding your Point #2, I'm a bit surprised that you consider a 1911 easier to disassemble (and I'm covering both field-stripping and detailed disassembly) than a Glock. I consider a Glock both easier and much faster for both; a local LEO that was until recently running/issueing both Glocks and 1911s required double the armor time to be spent on annual detailed disassembly on their 1911s (Kimber) vs their Glocks (which reportedly awas one of the main reasons they went purely to Glock a year or so back) Was this a test question? Did I just win a prize?

Best, Jon

A 1911 can be detail stripped with a cartridge, and that's to take out the grip screws. Glock? Not so much.

That's been my experience with my Glocks and 1911; YMMV.

[jetfire]

I'd actually agree with Bill, with the qualification that a Series 70 1911 is easier to detail strip than a Glock.

Not a Series 80. The devil is in those parts.

[Sensei]

I'm not sure about points 1, 2, or 3. I've never met anyone who can field strip or detail strip a 1911 faster than a Glock. I've seen plenty of guns crap the bed after 500-1000 rounds. Of my personally owned firearms, I've sent 1 Springfield PRO, 3 M&Ps, and 2 Sigs back to the factory within 100 rounds of purchase for issues unrelated to the magazines. Thus, I'd say that quality mags are 1/3 the battle with quality components, assembly, and ammo being the other 2/3.

[JonInWA]

Detail strip down to subcomponents - 1911 over Glock for ease.

# of times / rd required to strip Glock WELL over 1911.

I mean come on, I build a 1911 in Iraq with nothing more than a dremel, file kit, drill press and a Aussie Assaulter who had once been a machinist (assisting in barrel/slide/bushing fit).
Provided quality parts (and understand drop in for 1911 means 2-3 hours [per part] measuring and fitting) its not hard to do (hood trimming can be a bear without proper tooling).

Glock is drop in - or junk it, not really rebuildable in the old world sense.


Also a well built 1911 can be taken down much like a BHP

Kevin I'm really not intending this to be snide-but why in the world would you voluntarily choose to go with, let alone fabricate, a 1911 over a Glock (or HK) for your PDW in Iraq/Afghanistan? You obviously had some latitude in your PDW selection, so I'm assuming that you could just have easily chosen either a Glock or a 1911-correct me if I'm wrong.

While not disparaging a 1911 sue generis, it's a bit beyond me why you would deliberately choose such a lubrication-intensive/maintenance demanding/low capacity/relatively heavy/less weather impervious (and that applies to both the gun and the magazines-even if they're stainless steel) platform over a simpler, lighter, far less lubrication/maintenance intensive, higher capacity Glock. Especially with the fine, talc-like sand/grit prevelent in theater (and even more so when it's whipped around and into weapon innards by wind/chopper rotor wash, vehicles...)

I understand the pride of ownership/I made it with mah own hands sort of thing/John Moses Browning immaculate conception/1911 shootability/trigger et al. I also understand "battlefield tool." As a former troop leader and field grade officer, if I had such latitude for my troops, it would be a Glock sorta day hands-down. And my unit armorers would probably resemble the Maytag Repairman, at least when it came to PDWs...

And I still think a Glock's far easier to field-strip/detail disassemble/reassemble than a 1911. You just need a punch versus a .45 ACP cartridge to facilitate things-a ballpoint pen cartridge would probably suffice for the most part. The only even remotely difficult Glock components to take apart would be the triggerbar components (if for some God-unknown reason you needed to take the assembly down into its sub-components-I can't imagine that being a battlefield issue-you'd be far more likely just to throw in an entire new triggerbar assembly-which is how they come from Glock anyhow), and the magazine catch spring...

I'm genuinely curious. And yes, I own, use, carry and appreciate 1911s...but I'm far more likely to use/carry/deploy with (if given the option) a Glock than any of my 1911s. Frankly, I'd likely choose my Hi Power over a 1911...(but I'd subordinate it to a Glock as well).

Best, Jon

[Trooper224]

Jon,

I think you just might be putting the cart before the horse with your long post. He says he built a 1911 while in Iraq. He didn't say he carried it as his weapon of choice. I agree with your points though.

[45dotACP]

I truly believe that if you want to detail strip a s70 1911 vs a glock, the 1911 is easier. You can take it down to parts with an empty brass case. Heck, you can replace the recoil spring cap with a .45 case if you use a GI guide rod spring (and really why wouldn't you?)

For a glock, I need a punch. Or a glock tool ;)

[JHC]

The advantage the Glock has IMO is that even if it gets submerged, the 100% detail strip isn't needed. Detail strip the slide assembly and blow out the lower, a little lube optional and rock on. I can't speak to a dust storm filling each with talcum powder consistency sand.

[tomr]

Frankly, I'd likely choose my Hi Power over a 1911...(but I'd subordinate it to a Glock as well).

Best, Jon

Was tracking OK, till you got to here....

[KevinB]

Jon,

I think you just might be putting the cart before the horse with your long post. He says he built a 1911 while in Iraq. He didn't say he carried it as his weapon of choice. I agree with your points though.

No he was right.

I carried it after running 1,500 rds thru it in training/practice.
1) 9mm that was issued was ball ammo for the Glock.
2) I had access to a lot of .45 both ball and JHP (Lot being more than I could shoot in 2 years)
3) I had always wanted to shoot someone with a 1911.
4) I will freely admit it may not have been the smart choice, but it was damn cool.
5) I tore the 1911 down fairly often to the frame for cleaning - and the stupid thing would rust parts in the fricken desert..
6) Only issues I had was Wilson made (makes still?) crap magazine springs that would die quickly.
7) I freely admit again it was a emotional choice, but I shot it a lot better than I did a Glock. (I have this mental block on Glock grip angle that takes me time and rounds, and then I'm still slow to get good hits as I want to heel it to the sky)

I also had a Hk21 and a 16" Recce Rifle (and a Mk18 upper, plus some Para FAL's and a bunch of comblock shit), and I kept the G19 around.


That said, I have a 1911 in my safe but a 9mm M&P on my hip as I type...

[KevinB]

Lastly - I disagree with Bill's comments on the functioning of 1-2 mags, not sure if he was trying to start something here, but statistically you can't bank on those numbers at all.

From a proven design where you have over 10 guns taken to lifecycle (same bat time same bat channel, same lot etc) 200-300 rounds will give you a good idea.

[Tamara]

I'm not sure about points 1, 2, or 3. I've never met anyone who can field strip or detail strip a 1911 faster than a Glock.

I know at least one person who can pretty much detail strip a 1911 without looking at it... (He can toss the shok-buff into the trash can when his fingers find it without looking at either the shok-buff or the trash can, too. ;) )

Then again, he's a gunsmith. If you would like a gun, you could hand him a piece of metal and turn him loose in a room with a mill and a lathe and he will come out with a gun.

[Tamara]

While not disparaging a 1911 sue generis, it's a bit beyond me why you would deliberately choose such a ...maintenance demanding... platform

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what this special "maintenance" I was supposed to be doing on my 1911s. I'll concede the weight and capacity (those being the main reasons I switched to the M&P9) and on balance, 1911-pattern pistols are probably more desirous of a good squirt of oil than most newer plastic flat-black people-poppers, but this "maintenance" bugaboo keeps cropping up and I feel bad, because whatever it is, I didn't do it to the guns I carried for years.

Can someone please tell me specifically what this maintenance I was supposed to be doing consisted of?

[Lester Polfus]

Can someone please tell me specifically what this maintenance I was supposed to be doing consisted of?

All I did was clean mine and replace the recoil spring when I 'membered. I'm still waiting for the person who can make a cogent argument for more than that. Maybe they can also explain why I need to send a Springfield Armory that ran for 2K without a malfunction off to a gunsmith for a "reliability package."

I've parted ways with the 1911, but not for reasons most people think I should have...

[BLR]

Lastly - I disagree with Bill's comments on the functioning of 1-2 mags, not sure if he was trying to start something here, but statistically you can't bank on those numbers at all.

From a proven design where you have over 10 guns taken to lifecycle (same bat time same bat channel, same lot etc) 200-300 rounds will give you a good idea.

I really thought that was the least subjective statement of the bunch. Different perspectives.

Here is an (arguably, oversimplified) explanation:
A pistol, lets say it is a 1911, is "Part A."
A magazine, lets say it is a GI mag, is "Part B."
Ammunition, lets say it is 230g GI ball, is "Part C."

I do not think you can argue effectively that A changes from cycle to cycle over, say 1000 rounds. Would you agree? By that statement I mean the datum for the breech face, extractor, ejector, feed ramp, throat, ramp, etc aren't significantly changing. In other words, we picked a relatively "correct" gun.

Where the fun starts is in the interplay between B and C. B in and of itself, is pretty stable from one of it's cycles to the next. In other words, round 1 is consistent over time. Round 2 is consistent over time. The variation comes between round 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and so on. Now mix in the variation from round to round.

The reason most guns (226s, M&Ps, 1911s, P35s, P30s, and so on) are reliable is that they were designed to accommodate slight variation in feeding geometry (round 1 vs round 4, for example) and slight variation in ammunition (think Glock smile, for an extreme example).

The only real variation is, assuming a "good" gun and "good" magazine is the shooter and the ammunition.

What you are alluding to, and I won't argue the importance of it, is a measure of the sum total of factors contributing (or detracting) from reliability. It's far from scientific, or quantifiable, but it is a comprehensive and qualitative assessment.

All that said, 1 magazine will tell you if the gun and magazine and ammo is reliable. Just do that exact same thing every time, and your set. It won't tell you where in the operating window the gun (or you, for that matter) it is. That's where measuring the consistency of contact with the feed ramp, ejection, accuracy, and so on comes into play.

Some Lake City dudes published a series of excellent papers on this topic (well, on machine gun reliability and ammunition) that is worth looking up on DTIC.

ETA: I think there is confusion between "reliable" and "tolerant" in much the same manner as "racism" and "bigotry."

[Trooper224]

I carried the 1911 for a quarter of a century and I never found it to be the maintenance prima donna some have claimed, but I will admit it requires a bit more attention than a plastic fantastic. That being said, the big maintenance issue arises when the 1911 is issued at the department or unit level. Example: an extractor on a 1911 is not a drop in part and requires a bit of fitting and adjustment, not so with more modern designs. Not so much back when we had one company making the design, but now with dozens of manufacturers that run the complete spectrum of quality just about everything past the grip screws requires some kind of fitting. It's not an issue if you're an individual with one or two guns to maintain, but can be a major time drain when you have dozens or hundreds of pistols to keep running. In my opinion that's where the newer plug and play designs come into their own. I never found the design to be the least bit fragile and in fact quite robust. However, every machine requires parts replacement eventually and that's where the maintenance issues come into play.

[BLR]

I carried the 1911 for a quarter of a century and I never found it to be the maintenance prima donna some have claimed, but I will admit it requires a bit more attention than a plastic fantastic. That being said, the big maintenance issue arises when the 1911 is issued at the department or unit level. Example: an extractor on a 1911 is not a drop in part and requires a bit of fitting and adjustment, not so with more modern designs. Not so much back when we had one company making the design, but now with dozens of manufacturers that run the complete spectrum of quality just about everything past the grip screws requires some kind of fitting. It's not an issue if you're an individual with one or two guns to maintain, but can be a major time drain when you have dozens or hundreds of pistols to keep running. In my opinion that's where the newer plug and play designs come into their own. I never found the design to be the least bit fragile and in fact quite robust. However, every machine requires parts replacement eventually and that's where the maintenance issues come into play.

No fooling - I took an extractor out of a 4 separate CQB/CQBEs I own and swapped them around. They dropped in, and functioned correctly.

Every GI extractor was drop in.

I don't buy the difficulty in maintaining the gun at the department level either. That is, the 1911 in general. Make them match guns, then yes, there is some validity. But I have thousands of rounds through a pile of 1911s that have never gotten anything other than recoil springs and oil.

YMMV

[BWT]

I gave up my Stainless Steel DW CBOB as my daily carry for the following reasons:

Magazine related reliability issues (I tried enough combinations; I finally got fed up 7 rounders probably would've fixed this), Rust (a finish would've fixed this; I live in SC, you sweat outdoors), magazine capacity (I doubled the magazine capacity by going to a Glock and I also could carry one spare mag or no spare mag if desired and have the same or more capacity), weight, ammo expense (read less practice, $.50 a shot was a deal), the performance of 9mm JHP, and lastly how well I shoot and control a 9mm compared to .45. ETA: I found if I could control a .45 ACP well, I could shoot a 9mm excellently.

That isn't a list in order of importance; simply what I remembered. I think if I had started with a better Government size 1911 with an appropriate finish; I may have still be carrying a 1911.

I have yet to shoot the Glock 19 I received as an anniversary gift. As a side note; the ejector and extractor may be fine when it does. But the new finish is scuffing off the slide from racking using snap caps.

I still want to buy another 1911 and semi plan to soon or later.

ETA 2: I do believe that my gun was probably a large part of those issues or atleast related. Commander lengths are more finicky to magazine/ammo/spring combinations in general and it's non-finish would rust; SS is also slightly heavier than CS.

ETA 3: I'll leave it be after this; I also think that the longer slide and forward weight of a Government size slows the slide velocity (requiring lower lb springs) and introduces less muzzle flip to the shooter.

I was 21 and didn't know these things. I'll tell you this; my wife doesn't fight to fire my Glock 17. She did offer to go in halfway on a TRP after shooting two magazines through one at an Springfield Armory demo at a local gun store.

[45dotACP]

I really thought that was the least subjective statement of the bunch. Different perspectives.

Here is an (arguably, oversimplified) explanation:
A pistol, lets say it is a 1911, is "Part A."
A magazine, lets say it is a GI mag, is "Part B."
Ammunition, lets say it is 230g GI ball, is "Part C."

I do not think you can argue effectively that A changes from cycle to cycle over, say 1000 rounds. Would you agree? By that statement I mean the datum for the breech face, extractor, ejector, feed ramp, throat, ramp, etc aren't significantly changing. In other words, we picked a relatively "correct" gun.


Psh, I was told by dudebrah on a 1911 forum that if you don't retension the extractor every 500 rounds then your gun is hors de combat

[Tamara]

I don't buy the difficulty in maintaining the gun at the department level either. That is, the 1911 in general. Make them match guns, then yes, there is some validity.

...or make them "match" guns built by department armorers from a potluck of seized GMs...

(Imagine what LAPD D Platoon's guns must have looked like back in the day. Drag a magnet through a big city evidence locker that only picks up "1911s" and then have some guys assigned to make them bullseye accurate. But reliable, too. I can see where some of these legends originated...)

[BLR]

Much of this BS is being propagated by people trolling for inflammatory blog posts, who have never actually, you know, built a gun.

[Tamara]

Much of this BS is being propagated by people trolling for inflammatory blog posts, who have never actually, you know, built a gun.

Frickin' bloggers. Pack of 'tards. Wouldn't know a good gun if it bit 'em in the butt.

[BLR]

So true. So very true.

[Tamara]

The only thing worse than bloggers is engineers. You haven't heard funny until you've heard a couple of gunsmiths going back and forth with an engineer in the room, trying to bait the dude...

"Hey, which enduring, classic firearms designs came from engineers rather than gunsmiths? ..."

"..."

"..."

"Yeah, thought so."

(Normally they derisively say "Eugene Stoner", to belittle him against giants like Browning and Mauser, but it turns out that ol' Eugene was a humble un-sheepskinned machinist himself.)

;)

[Tamara]

Personally, having studied Browning's pistol designs and how he simplified them over the years, I'm only half-kidding when I say that if JMB were somehow alive and designing handguns today, that they would be a single piece of polymer or MIM with no moving parts and they would kill our nation's foes with mind bullets. :cool:

Seriously, ignore the 1911 and 1935, the former of which was polluted by government requirements and the latter by the necessity of designing around his own patents as well as some Frog's meddling, and look at the progression from the original 1900 (both service pistol and pocket pistol) all the way up through the 1910 iterations of the same, and you will see a ruthless paring of parts count, one part redesigned to do the work of two or three... The people who call Browning a genius aren't all misty-eyed leg-humping pensioners pining for the days of old; the ruthless simplification as JMB moved from design to design is brilliant to behold. This is the guy that patented the one-piece slide and breechblock, after all. When it comes to modern pistols, that's like patenting the frickin' wheel.

[Trooper224]

No fooling - I took an extractor out of a 4 separate CQB/CQBEs I own and swapped them around. They dropped in, and functioned correctly.

Every GI extractor was drop in.

I don't buy the difficulty in maintaining the gun at the department level either. That is, the 1911 in general. Make them match guns, then yes, there is some validity. But I have thousands of rounds through a pile of 1911s that have never gotten anything other than recoil springs and oil.

YMMV

Well then Bill, thank you for pissing on the collective experience of quite a few people including myself. I'll leave you to your worship of God's Gun.

[Haraise]

Well then Bill, thank you for pissing on the collective experience of quite a few people including myself. I'll leave you to your worship of God's Gun.

This outburst is pretty funny when reading your signature below it. Chill. Experience is a fine thing, especially when it comes to perpetuating myths.

[Tamara]

Well then Bill, thank you for pissing on the collective experience of quite a few people including myself. I'll leave you to your worship of God's Gun.

There is a whole bunch more pissing, moaning, hand-wringing, and navel-gazing about 1911 extractors than is deserved. This is not something that is really disputable.

The biggest problems with them in commercial "1911"-pattern production guns today is that they're often made out of cast dirt and have no arch or bevel at all. They're cargo cult extractors; a thing shaped like a extractor that will fit in the hole intended for the extractor, and yet will not perform extractor-like functions.

[Lester Polfus]

I made a New Year's resolution not to participate in threads about the 1911, and it just won't stick.

Here's something I said over on TPI, that I think is appropriate to the discussion here:

Here's a question:

When we talk about "The 1911" are we really talking about anything at all?

Wilson Combat makes 1911 pattern pistols. So does Colt. So does Smith And Wesson.

And so do Taurus and RIA.

Some manufactureres make multiple 1911's at multiple price points.

So I would posit that talking about "the 1911" in general without talking about where it came from doesn't mean much.

I know just a little about Japanese swords, but I know you can get handmade, folded steel swords that are pretty the same as originals. You can also get diecast bladest that are stamped out and brazed to a handle. Collectors call those "Japanese sword shaped objects."

So it seems to me the market is awash in both 1911's and 1911 Shaped Objects.

I have a rigourous rule to only invest in mutual funds, but when I heard Taurus was going to make 1911's, I almost broke it to see if I could buy stock in UPS and/or FEDEX. After all, all those guns have to make it back to Florida somehow

There's a similar problem with the AR-15, in that they are built to a very wide range of standards. Years ago, when I was paying attention to AR15's, there was an attempt to group the various manufacturers into "tiers," based on the quality of components and assembly.

This being the internet, this of course led to bunches of argumetns about 1) what manufacturer belonged in which tier and 2) what tier was "good enough" for various functions.

I almost wonder if something similar would help for 1911's. Although it would probably just lead to the same arguments.

[45dotACP]

This being the internet, this of course led to bunches of argumetns about 1) what manufacturer belonged in which tier and 2) what tier was "good enough" for various functions.

I almost wonder if something similar would help for 1911's. Although it would probably just lead to the same arguments.

But ZOMG my Kimber is best out of box pistol for the war fighter of today! It's totally got the same qualities as guns that cost three times as much....

Sorry, couldn't resist. But that's how that discussion would go. Likely not on this forum, but it is certainly the reason just such list hasn't been compiled.

[RevolverRob]

I like 1911s. I like Glocks, in that I always appreciate that Gaston Glock knows how to build a simple gun like John Browning did. I've never really been able to get a handle on a Glock and shoot it well, but maybe someday soon I will try again. Whenever I see Glock and 1911 discussions, I fondly recall an old family friend. He was a former Marine, he fought on Iwo Jima, was injured, twice, was sent home to recuperate, but he was young then (just 19 years old) and wasn't discharged, instead he was sent to Nagasaki after the war during the occupation and had that dubious honor of being a driver for the local brass, and he carried the same 1911 he had on Iwo Jima. Anyways to make a long story endless...This Marine, who had fired his 1911 in anger, in one of the bloodiest battles the Marines have ever fought in, loved 1911s. He loved them. He also loved Glocks. He appreciated simple things in life and guns that worked.

What's my point? I don't know. I just thought I'd point out that if people who have been there, done it, seen it, lived it, can like both guns, then hell, maybe we can all just be friends. Who wants to have a group hug and sing kumbaya?

-Rob

[Sensei]

I know at least one person who can pretty much detail strip a 1911 without looking at it... (He can toss the shok-buff into the trash can when his fingers find it without looking at either the shok-buff or the trash can, too. ;) )

Then again, he's a gunsmith. If you would like a gun, you could hand him a piece of metal and turn him loose in a room with a mill and a lathe and he will come out with a gun.

I suppose my point was that in 10 min I can train my wife, the most technically incompetent person that I know, how to field strip and reassemble a Glock. I would take her and most other novices that long just to figure out the barrel bushing on a 1911. Then, there is the issue of the hospital bill after the recoil spring plug takes out her eye...

[LSP972]

Imagine what LAPD D Platoon's guns must have looked like back in the day.

They looked… normal.

LSP552, myself, and two other comrades spent a week with those fellows, about six months after the King riots. One of the two LAPD SWAT troops who met us at the hotel had a stainless frame on his gun, but every other one I saw was blued. Each troop was issued two; one with a SureFire semi-permanently attached WML, one "regular". Most of the guys we worked with had either a 14" Benelli gauge or an MP5 for a shoulder weapon.

As our team's armorer, I wanted to spend some time with their armorers; unfortunately, we had too much on our plate learning their tactics and it simply didn't happen.

But aside from the WMLs, there was nothing extraordinary about those pistols. They were well-used, and well-cared for.

.

[LSP972]

Then, there is the issue of the hospital bill after the recoil spring plug takes out her eye...

LOL. My first pistol was an Astra 600. I bought it at the ripe age of 14, with proceeds from a summer of cutting grass around the neighborhood. For those of you who aren't familiar with this beast, it is a large, blow-back 9mm pistol with a recoil spring that would function an Oerlikon 20mm cannon. The first time I tried field-stripping it, I was at a friend's house. His dog was sitting nearby, watching with interest, and when the muzzle-mounted spring retainer launched it hit the poor mutt right between the running lights and almost knocked him out.

Funny how you remember things like that…:D

.

[BLR]

I suppose my point was that in 10 min I can train my wife, the most technically incompetent person that I know, how to field strip and reassemble a Glock. I would take her and most other novices that long just to figure out the barrel bushing on a 1911. Then, there is the issue of the hospital bill after the recoil spring plug takes out her eye...

Please don't take this personally, it's just a great example of what I'm talking about.

1911s have captured recoil spring plugs. Every 1911 has one. Lots and lots of clones and copies don't. And that liberal use of the design is not the designs fault.

Field stripping a Glock is easier, yes. Taking a Glock down to the individual pin, is not in my experience.

[NETim]

There I was, awash in a sea of polymer, my lone 1911 and I duking it out with countless paper threats in the wilds of Brainerd MN. (Crow Wing Co Sheriff range)

Keeping LAV's advice in mind, They'll run dirty, but they won't run dry, I gave it a shot of Wilson's wonderful Universal Ultima Lube II in the appropriate places each day at lunch.

Naturally, it's appearance this day and age raised eyebrows, being a 1911 and all, but after several hundred flawless rounds, inquiring (surprised?) minds started to ask who built it.

Buy once, cry once.

[JonInWA]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what this special "maintenance" I was supposed to be doing on my 1911s. I'll concede the weight and capacity (those being the main reasons I switched to the M&P9) and on balance, 1911-pattern pistols are probably more desirous of a good squirt of oil than most newer plastic flat-black people-poppers, but this "maintenance" bugaboo keeps cropping up and I feel bad, because whatever it is, I didn't do it to the guns I carried for years.

Can someone please tell me specifically what this maintenance I was supposed to be doing consisted of?

-More components requiring lubrication;
-Greater amounts of lubrication needed;
-More frequent recoil spring replacement intervals;
-More initial verification/set-up time required, by a qualified/experienced armorer/gunsmith;
-More components susceptible to corrosion, requiring more frequent detailed disassembly for application of anti-corrosives, if weapon is exposed/carried in environments where water can penetrate (i.e., like every non-desk-bound LEO doing patrol...)
-Greater dedicated amounts of time needed by unit armorors to perform periodic detailed disassembly/inspections/corrective actions;
-Potentially greater amounts of time, resources spent to select and maintain magazines for each specific 1911

Hilton Yam has a pretty detailed breakdown of the things needed to do to successfully run a 1911 over protracted roundcounts on his 10-8 website. While he and I don't agree on everything 1911, I think what he enumerates is worth a read and consideration.

http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/Reliability%2C-Round-Counts%2C-and-Longevity-in-1911s.html

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

Best, Jon

[ASH556]

I made a New Year's resolution not to participate in threads about the 1911, and it just won't stick.

Here's something I said over on TPI, that I think is appropriate to the discussion here:

Here's a question:

When we talk about "The 1911" are we really talking about anything at all?

Wilson Combat makes 1911 pattern pistols. So does Colt. So does Smith And Wesson.

And so do Taurus and RIA.

Some manufactureres make multiple 1911's at multiple price points.

So I would posit that talking about "the 1911" in general without talking about where it came from doesn't mean much.

I know just a little about Japanese swords, but I know you can get handmade, folded steel swords that are pretty the same as originals. You can also get diecast bladest that are stamped out and brazed to a handle. Collectors call those "Japanese sword shaped objects."

So it seems to me the market is awash in both 1911's and 1911 Shaped Objects.

I have a rigourous rule to only invest in mutual funds, but when I heard Taurus was going to make 1911's, I almost broke it to see if I could buy stock in UPS and/or FEDEX. After all, all those guns have to make it back to Florida somehow

There's a similar problem with the AR-15, in that they are built to a very wide range of standards. Years ago, when I was paying attention to AR15's, there was an attempt to group the various manufacturers into "tiers," based on the quality of components and assembly.

This being the internet, this of course led to bunches of argumetns about 1) what manufacturer belonged in which tier and 2) what tier was "good enough" for various functions.

I almost wonder if something similar would help for 1911's. Although it would probably just lead to the same arguments.

Not to sidetrack too badly, but karmapolice and I had this same exact (AR15/1911) discussion about 6 months ago (the time we both switched to Glock, me from M&P and he from 1911). Being a rather "avid" AR15 armorer (certified even ;)) myself, I clearly see the parallel and can sympathize with the frustration true 1911 smiths understand when dealing with the public and Taurus, etc. I try to explain the AR side of it to people like this: "It doesn't matter who's name is on the side. It simply matters that it was assembled correctly from correctly-produced parts. There are those who do so more consistently than others. This is where the brand name matters." I suspect 1911's are the same way and why (showing my ignorance now) Wilson, Springfield, Colt are still considered to be the minimum standard.

[jetfire]

http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/Reliability%2C-Round-Counts%2C-and-Longevity-in-1911s.html

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

Best, Jon

People seem to think that Hilton recommends all kinds of crazy maintenance for 1911s; but if you actually read what he writes on the topic it comes down to: 1) lubricate the gun frequently, 2) have spare parts on hand for when stuff breaks.

That doesn't seem like crazy talk to me, I do that for any gun i'm going to use for serious things.

[Tamara]

They looked… normal.

...

But aside from the WMLs, there was nothing extraordinary about those pistols.

I wasn't saying "Wow, what must they have been like?" but rather "Ugh, what must they have been like?"

I mean the reason for the original deal with the Kimber TLE contract was because of the hassle of, first refurbing to a semi-uniform standard, and then maintaining a Heinz 57 fleet of seized firearms.

[SteveK]

This thread reminds me I need to pick up a Delta Elite. Thanks.

[RevolverRob]

Maybe I am doing it wrong...but I haven't met a 1911 yet that couldn't pull the slide back to the take down notch, slide stop pushed/pulled out and then the entire slide/barrel/spring assembly slid off as one unit, a la any modern captured guide rod gun. You can then pull the recoil spring out from the underside easily and turn the bushing and field strip the whole gun. It takes as long to do as it takes to disassemble my Kahr or a Glock. Admittedly, reassembling as one unit is more difficult and I have found it easier to reassemble a 1911 the "traditional way" of sliding everything in place, then pushing the recoil spring plug back down and twisting the bushing to lock it all. And while you don't need a bushing wrench to disassemble a 1911 (good ones none of the FLGR crap), it does make it easier in general.

[Crow Hunter]

Maybe I am doing it wrong...but I haven't met a 1911 yet that couldn't pull the slide back to the take down notch, slide stop pushed/pulled out and then the entire slide/barrel/spring assembly slid off as one unit, a la any modern captured guide rod gun. You can then pull the recoil spring out from the underside easily and turn the bushing and field strip the whole gun. It takes as long to do as it takes to disassemble my Kahr or a Glock. Admittedly, reassembling as one unit is more difficult and I have found it easier to reassemble a 1911 the "traditional way" of sliding everything in place, then pushing the recoil spring plug back down and twisting the bushing to lock it all. And while you don't need a bushing wrench to disassemble a 1911 (good ones none of the FLGR crap), it does make it easier in general.

Now I am going to have to go home and try that on my brother's MC Operator.:D

I have always done the bushing first (after turning it the wrong way) and tried to not get shot or shoot anyone else with the recoil spring plug the way my Dad showed me years ago. And probably why I do it wrong handed every time because I was watching him do it from the front.:rolleyes:

[Hambo]

I wasn't saying "Wow, what must they have been like?" but rather "Ugh, what must they have been like?"

I mean the reason for the original deal with the Kimber TLE contract was because of the hassle of, first refurbing to a semi-uniform standard, and then maintaining a Heinz 57 fleet of seized firearms.

I'm not sure the TLE was an upgrade. When LAPD SWAT started using confiscated 1911s, there wasn't the plethora of 1911-ish pistols we have today, and they weren't trying to get Llamas up to Colt standards. The point being, if you're picking through a generous selection of 70 Series or older Colt (or milspec) 1911s, that would be a pretty good base to start with.

[BLR]

-More components requiring lubrication;
-Greater amounts of lubrication needed;
-More frequent recoil spring replacement intervals;
-More initial verification/set-up time required, by a qualified/experienced armorer/gunsmith;
-More components susceptible to corrosion, requiring more frequent detailed disassembly for application of anti-corrosives, if weapon is exposed/carried in environments where water can penetrate (i.e., like every non-desk-bound LEO doing patrol...)
-Greater dedicated amounts of time needed by unit armorors to perform periodic detailed disassembly/inspections/corrective actions;
-Potentially greater amounts of time, resources spent to select and maintain magazines for each specific 1911

Hilton Yam has a pretty detailed breakdown of the things needed to do to successfully run a 1911 over protracted roundcounts on his 10-8 website. While he and I don't agree on everything 1911, I think what he enumerates is worth a read and consideration.

http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/Reliability%2C-Round-Counts%2C-and-Longevity-in-1911s.html

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

Best, Jon

Lube - I can make a 1911 just as tolerant to lack of lube as a Glock. It isn't difficult to do. 75% of doing so is in the finish, the other 25% is in reducing bearing surface area, which significantly reduces service life. Design considerations, and all.
Recoil spring - Why should I have to change my flat wire recoil spring more often in a CQB than a Glock?
Set up time - Again, do you think USGI 1911A1s got gunsmith time? Or are you talking about pressing a match gun into service? If that's the case, let's compare apples to apples.
Corrosion - Again, why is that? You don't have to buy a blued 1911. You can buy a stainless one. Or you can sent it to Robar to have a great finish put on it.
Armorers - Again, why? I have a pile of 1911s that I am drawing my conclusion on, not all mine. This is, like extractors, a grossly over blown idea used to generate blog traffic.
Mags - I've not had a bad ETM or Cobra yet. Or USGI 7 rounder. I've seen bad slide stops that mucked up the works, but rarely do you get a bad mag from Tripp or Wilson.

With all due deference to the experts, extractors don't "lose tension" in manner thought. They don't flex enough to. They don't wear out in 7500 rounds. They don't need depot level maintenance every 10k. And how many cops put 10k through a gun anyway? 5%? 10%?

I think some quantification of the numbers is in order.

For those who have an interest: http://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/1849892/06181G_Sample.pdf/d408b01c-8497-46a3-9845-3af305feba89

Fatigue limits of steel are pretty high.

[jetfire]

Armorers - Again, why? I have a pile of 1911s that I am drawing my conclusion on, not all mine. This is, like extractors, a grossly over blown idea used to generate blog traffic.


How many of those guns are duty weapons issued to cops?

[KevinB]

People seem to think that Hilton recommends all kinds of crazy maintenance for 1911s; but if you actually read what he writes on the topic it comes down to: 1) lubricate the gun frequently, 2) have spare parts on hand for when stuff breaks.

That doesn't seem like crazy talk to me, I do that for any gun i'm going to use for serious things.

FYI I agree with Jon, and Hilton.

Point is with a 1911 you need REAL Smith's - not a guy who can swap a part.
User needs more education - and the gun requires more TLC.

There is a BIG difference between 1 guy who has a gun, and maintaining a fleet of entity guns.

[GJM]

I just went and read Hilton's recommendations again. I spent a bunch of years primarily shooting quality 1911 pistols, and it seems like he recommends a lot more maintenance than I was doing. I think much of his service interval advice is oriented to having ONE 1911, that you both shoot for training and carry, and want with a high degree of certainty, to work.

My strategy was to have a few shooter 1911 pistols for training and competition, plus a pair of carry 1911 pistols that got verified reliable after their initial customization, and then were mostly carried and shot only intermittently to verify continued functioning. This allowed me to clean, lube, change recoil springs, and basically shoot the training/competition pistols until something broke. That was infrequent, and at much higher round counts than Hilton suggests might be a problem. The carry guns were unmolested, kept cleaned and lubed, with round counts in the low thousands.

I didn't make up that strategy, as it was commonly thought of as good advice, and put forward by Clint Smith and others then.

[KevinB]

I really thought that was the least subjective statement of the bunch. Different perspectives.
agreed




Here is an (arguably, oversimplified) explanation:
A pistol, lets say it is a 1911, is "Part A."
A magazine, lets say it is a GI mag, is "Part B."
Ammunition, lets say it is 230g GI ball, is "Part C."

I do not think you can argue effectively that A changes from cycle to cycle over, say 1000 rounds. Would you agree? By that statement I mean the datum for the breech face, extractor, ejector, feed ramp, throat, ramp, etc aren't significantly changing. In other words, we picked a relatively "correct" gun.


agree




Where the fun starts is in the interplay between B and C. B in and of itself, is pretty stable from one of it's cycles to the next. In other words, round 1 is consistent over time. Round 2 is consistent over time. The variation comes between round 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and so on. Now mix in the variation from round to round.

Agree in principle - however from a observed standpoint, I think that lot of lot tolerances of B and C affect the interaction with A to get D ;)
Also the entry of heat and debris into the equation always starts to make things get less clear.



The reason most guns (226s, M&Ps, 1911s, P35s, P30s, and so on) are reliable is that they were designed to accommodate slight variation in feeding geometry (round 1 vs round 4, for example) and slight variation in ammunition (think Glock smile, for an extreme example).

The only real variation is, assuming a "good" gun and "good" magazine is the shooter and the ammunition.

What you are alluding to, and I won't argue the importance of it, is a measure of the sum total of factors contributing (or detracting) from reliability. It's far from scientific, or quantifiable, but it is a comprehensive and qualitative assessment.
[quote]

Fully agree - see my point above.

[quote]
All that said, 1 magazine will tell you if the gun and magazine and ammo is reliable. Just do that exact same thing every time, and your set. It won't tell you where in the operating window the gun (or you, for that matter) it is. That's where measuring the consistency of contact with the feed ramp, ejection, accuracy, and so on comes into play.

Some Lake City dudes published a series of excellent papers on this topic (well, on machine gun reliability and ammunition) that is worth looking up on DTIC.

ETA: I think there is confusion between "reliable" and "tolerant" in much the same manner as "racism" and "bigotry."a

I love sifting thru .gov stuff, the older 40-60's data for many things is head and shoulders above what is 'known' now (at least in .gov as back then smart people worked for the .gov not private industry.

Perhaps tolerant is a better word.

[Clobbersaurus]

I think many people here are missing Bill's points entirely.

I think form Todd G's 9mm 1911 test, we know that a properly built 1911 with good mags can run with a minimum of armorer support.

I read an interesting post a few years back from a dude that owns a range up here. He was asked what range rental pistols were the most durable. His experience was with extreme high volume range rental guns that got a minimum if cleaning and service. Anyway, his instant response was that well built 1911's were by far the most durable pistols in his inventory (sorry I can't remember now what brands he quoted). I do remember him stating that he had several Glocks on his desk that were shot to destruction, but no 1911's.

[BLR]

I just went and read Hilton's recommendations again. I spent a bunch of years primarily shooting quality 1911 pistols, and it seems like he recommends a lot more maintenance than I was doing. I think much of his service interval advice is oriented to having ONE 1911, that you both shoot for training and carry, and want with a high degree of certainty, to work.

My strategy was to have a few shooter 1911 pistols for training and competition, plus a pair of carry 1911 pistols that got verified reliable after their initial customization, and then were mostly carried and shot only intermittently to verify continued functioning. This allowed me to clean, lube, change recoil springs, and basically shoot the training/competition pistols until something broke. That was infrequent, and at much higher round counts than Hilton suggests might be a problem. The carry guns were unmolested, kept cleaned and lubed, with round counts in the low thousands.

I didn't make up that strategy, as it was commonly thought of as good advice, and put forward by Clint Smith and others then.

I actually don't disagree with what Hilton Yam says. I totally disagree with the way it is said, and the way his followers read it. Is an extractor a 7500 round service item? No. That's just silly. I think, and I don't know or talk to him, he is offering up a recommendation for preventative maintenance. And that's a totally valid and fine philosophy. Though, if I had an extractor hit 5k or 7k, without a breakage, I'd not be in a rush to change it just because. The problem is this: people are looking for a simple, no thought answer or solution. They don't exist.

Here is the dirty truth: Cop, GI or otherwise, you really need to understand the gun you are carrying. Don't blindly follow, even internet celebrities. No one knows as much as they think they do, including me. Think about what you are doing. Research it. M&P/G17 extractors fail just like 1911 extractors do. MIM and casting are notorious for voids, be it in a 1911 or a G17. If I had to bet on a pistol getting to 200,000 rounds w/ the least amount of trouble, I'd chose a CQB-E if the caliber was 45. In 9mm, I'd get a APEX M&P or Glock, and excepting unintentional mag releases, I'd take a factory FNS long slide if I had to pick standard parts.

YMMV

[KevinB]

I just went and read Hilton's recommendations again. I spent a bunch of years primarily shooting quality 1911 pistols, and it seems like he recommends a lot more maintenance than I was doing. I think much of his service interval advice is oriented to having ONE 1911, that you both shoot for training and carry, and want with a high degree of certainty, to work.

My strategy was to have a few shooter 1911 pistols for training and competition, plus a pair of carry 1911 pistols that got verified reliable after their initial customization, and then were mostly carried and shot only intermittently to verify continued functioning. This allowed me to clean, lube, change recoil springs, and basically shoot the training/competition pistols until something broke. That was infrequent, and at much higher round counts than Hilton suggests might be a problem. The carry guns were unmolested, kept cleaned and lubed, with round counts in the low thousands.

I didn't make up that strategy, as it was commonly thought of as good advice, and put forward by Clint Smith and others then.


On a personal level that is great advice --- however on an entity level few (a handful) can afford to stock 2+ pistols for each shooter.

Figure in that very few entities will have more than 2-3% of their guys being shooters (not capable shooters, but very passionate involved in gungeekery).

I took armorers courses for interest sake when in the Mil - mainly as I came to understand that most armorers are simply parts changers, and do not really understand the what,why,where of how the weapon works.

Preventative Maintenance - from Bill's point above.
Entity X buys a new gun.
During their selection testing they lifecycle a set number of guns to determine a MRBS, and MRBF.
They set PM replacment at 75% (for example) so parts do not fail when the weapon is working.
PM is like insurance in that way - to attempt to ensure that the weapon will never fail.

I know Bill and many here know that -- I just was trying to ensure others are tracking.

[BLR]

agreed



agree



Agree in principle - however from a observed standpoint, I think that lot of lot tolerances of B and C affect the interaction with A to get D ;)
Also the entry of heat and debris into the equation always starts to make things get less clear.

[quote]
The reason most guns (226s, M&Ps, 1911s, P35s, P30s, and so on) are reliable is that they were designed to accommodate slight variation in feeding geometry (round 1 vs round 4, for example) and slight variation in ammunition (think Glock smile, for an extreme example).

The only real variation is, assuming a "good" gun and "good" magazine is the shooter and the ammunition.

What you are alluding to, and I won't argue the importance of it, is a measure of the sum total of factors contributing (or detracting) from reliability. It's far from scientific, or quantifiable, but it is a comprehensive and qualitative assessment.
[quote]

Fully agree - see my point above.

a

I love sifting thru .gov stuff, the older 40-60's data for many things is head and shoulders above what is 'known' now (at least in .gov as back then smart people worked for the .gov not private industry.

Perhaps tolerant is a better word.

I have four 4" binders full of 40s thru 70s .gov publications. Because we really, truly are dumber today. Lake City had some damned smart dudes at one point in time. Their treatise on primers - that is upper echelon stuff (I just can't say Tier 1 anymore. I'll feel dirty).

[GJM]

Kevin, having observed this with aircraft for many years, PM isn't a free lunch. We observe a lot more problems coming out of PM (meaning annual and periodic inspections) than going in!

[SAWBONES]

Partisanship and hyperbole about favored brands and designs aside, I'd observe that anyone who detail strips, at the "down to the last pin" level, a 1911 faster than a Glock, and presuming that they're honestly trying to do so quickly, must either have a masterful familiarity and ability with the 1911, or is far less than intimately familiar and practiced with Glocks.

Neglecting only to remove the sights and channel liner, and not including magazine disassembly, Glocks come completely apart otherwise in about a minute and a half with a 3/32" punch and a pair of needlenose pliers, and if the slide lock and magazine catch are permitted to stay in place, maybe half that, and using only a 3/32" punch.

With the 1911, I've never seen disassembly done anywhere near that quickly, since we're talking about disassembling the MSH itself, as well as removing the magazine catch assembly as necessary parts of the process.

OTOH, if the comparison involves only detail-stripping the slides of both guns, and disassembling frames as above for the Glock while disassembling the 1911 down to only the level of removing the sear spring and firing group components, it could be much closer.

[KevinB]

I never fully understood how smart they were back then, until out shooting long gun with (name drop) David Tubb. The US Army Air Force had quantified a number of ballistics effects.
Crosswind Jump and how crosswinds have a vertical component to them as well as lateral on the trajectory of the bullet due to the twist of the bullet. David has two identical rifles but rifles in opposing twists (one left one right) and you can observe the effects from shooting them together and seeing the guns do absolutely different things (and you have confirmed they both shoot POI/POA in zero wind).
Ironically Todd Hodnett explained it from an aeronautical standpoint very similarly.
But they had done all of this 40's- and forgotten about it in the 70's
For years assumptions had been made that you had screwed up a wind and/or a range call.

KAC's old Director of R&D had MegazillionGigaBytes of data from old presentations in searchable PDF's --- very illuminating.

[pdb]

KAC's old Director of R&D had MegazillionGigaBytes of data from old presentations in searchable PDF's --- very illuminating.

And now I'm suddenly salivating.

[BLR]

I never fully understood how smart they were back then, until out shooting long gun with (name drop) David Tubb. The US Army Air Force had quantified a number of ballistics effects.
Crosswind Jump and how crosswinds have a vertical component to them as well as lateral on the trajectory of the bullet due to the twist of the bullet. David has two identical rifles but rifles in opposing twists (one left one right) and you can observe the effects from shooting them together and seeing the guns do absolutely different things (and you have confirmed they both shoot POI/POA in zero wind).
Ironically Todd Hodnett explained it from an aeronautical standpoint very similarly.
But they had done all of this 40's- and forgotten about it in the 70's
For years assumptions had been made that you had screwed up a wind and/or a range call.

KAC's old Director of R&D had MegazillionGigaBytes of data from old presentations in searchable PDF's --- very illuminating.

Yup.

Ballistics is a wonderfully rich vein of aerodynamics.

[JTQ]

I took armorers courses for interest sake when in the Mil - mainly as I came to understand that most armorers are simply parts changers, and do not really understand the what,why,where of how the weapon works.

Preventative Maintenance - from Bill's point above.
Entity X buys a new gun.
During their selection testing they lifecycle a set number of guns to determine a MRBS, and MRBF.
They set PM replacment at 75% (for example) so parts do not fail when the weapon is working.
PM is like insurance in that way - to attempt to ensure that the weapon will never fail.


I'm just pulling your chain here a little...

For clarity, are you saying the military tracks rounds through a Beretta M9 and replaces locking blocks every 15,000 rounds, and trigger return springs and recoil springs every 3,750 rounds.

Or do they just shoot them until they break, and then swap out a part.

[okie john]

I read an interesting post a few years back from a dude that owns a range up here. He was asked what range rental pistols were the most durable. His experience was with extreme high volume range rental guns that got a minimum if cleaning and service. Anyway, his instant response was that well built 1911's were by far the most durable pistols in his inventory (sorry I can't remember now what brands he quoted). I do remember him stating that he had several Glocks on his desk that were shot to destruction, but no 1911's.

I used to work on ranges with rental guns. As a rule, stainless L- and K-frames needed a little tweaking about once a year, and you could pretty much ignore the Glocks. One of the ranges had a Springfield 1911 just wouldn't die, even after we replaced the barrel when the rifling was no longer visible. I don't know that it ever got new springs--maybe a new mag now and then, but that's about all. On the other hand, we kept everything well and truly lubricated...


Okie John

[Jeep]

Kevin, having observed this with aircraft for many years, PM isn't a free lunch. We observe a lot more problems coming out of PM (meaning annual and periodic inspections) than going in!

This point is 100% correct--and often overlooked. PM can result in lots of things going wrong.

Luckily, when I was in the Army, we did absolutely no PM to our .45's; which meant that we didn't damage them through PM. Recoil springs were never changed, however (I doubt our armorers knew they needed changing), and mainsprings were allowed to rust away in mainspring housings, which is why our .45's had 14 pound trigger pulls. However, so long as the trigger pull was at least 6 lbs they met the Army's standards and were considered good to go. There was no upper limit on the number.

[Stephen]

Since we're gun nerds, discussing and debating the merits of different guns is inevitable. However, my big takeaway from Todd's endurance testing is that shooters waste too much time going down that rabbit hole. Pick whatever floats your boat and drive on. I would bet that even many pistols that most PF posters wouldn't be caught dead with wouldn't do that bad in a TLG-style test. Like a Ruger SR9 or something. The hardware just isn't that important. But with that said...

I'm sure there are many myths about 1911s that simply aren't true. But what can't be argued is that they're heavy, low capacity, and expensive. The price difference between a well-built 1911 and a Glock/M&P is a couple months worth of ammo. And then you get to the expense of buying .45 ACP. For me, that alone makes the 1911 impractical as a serious gun. And even if that didn't, the capacity would. In the unlikely event of me needing a pistol to save my bacon, screw having 8 rounds in the gun. But not everyone shares my priorities in a gun. If the 1911 suits you, rock on.

[KevinB]

Kevin, having observed this with aircraft for many years, PM isn't a free lunch. We observe a lot more problems coming out of PM (meaning annual and periodic inspections) than going in!

Garbage in, Garbage out.

Honestly I do not really deal with Big Army at all - I know that at some point Aberdeen did testing and noted the MRBS and MRBF on items -- but I would say that no - most regular units don't have a clue of what round counts are on them, nor do they have people who would know what to do if they did.

However if you a entity that say has a regular routine
X shoots 1,000 rds of pistol each week (give or take 5%) on pistol ranges
1k of carbine
200 pistol and 1000 carbine in tactical drills/scenarios etc
Then you know that the typical monthly firing schedule / gun is around 4,500 pistol and 9,400 carbine.

You then bring in Detachment 3's weapons every 2 months
Pistol gets new recoil springs etc - carbine gets new upper, springs.
Every 4th month more gets replaced.

HOWEVER - you need trained folks - not just a firing pin protrusion gauge and a PCard...

FOR during PM, it helps to notice that the locking block has a fracture etc.

[Tamara]

I'm not sure the TLE was an upgrade.

In retrospect, no. But at the time it must have seemed a tempting alternative to GI guns, commercial Colts, and (for all I know) the odd Springer. Remember that this was right before Kimber pooped the bed with the early Series II teething problems and the external extractor debacle. At the turn of the millennium, Kimber was still a name to conjure with; an "off-the-rack custom" for not much more than new Colt money.

[45dotACP]

In retrospect, no. But at the time it must have seemed a tempting alternative to GI guns, commercial Colts, and (for all I know) the odd Springer. Remember that this was right before Kimber pooped the bed with the early Series II teething problems and the external extractor debacle. At the turn of the millennium, Kimber was still a name to conjure with; an "off-the-rack custom" for not much more than new Colt money.
Well Kimbers made in the old Clackamas plant had a good reputation. I've handled a few and would put the one my brother has at far and away above any Springfield and even a few Colts. Sample size of one, but that gun is a series 70 rootin tootin .45 shootin sewing machine.

[Tamara]

Well Kimbers made in the old Clackamas plant had a good reputation.

Actually, all the 1911s were made in Yonkers. The old "Clackamas" rollmarked ones were from when they were still running on a variance letter. ;)

I had a Clackamas rollmarked gun that was the bomb. Loved it. A friend had one that was his po-po duty gun for years and years until he switched departments and they made him tote a Glock.

[JTQ]

Actually, all the 1911s were made in Yonkers. .
True.

[Hambo]

In retrospect, no. But at the time it must have seemed a tempting alternative to GI guns, commercial Colts, and (for all I know) the odd Springer. Remember that this was right before Kimber pooped the bed with the early Series II teething problems and the external extractor debacle. At the turn of the millennium, Kimber was still a name to conjure with; an "off-the-rack custom" for not much more than new Colt money.

My point wasn't really about the success or failure of LAPD SWAT's .45 replacement, but about the quality of 1911s they worked with before that. Was the pre-Kimber LAPD pool of 1911s any different from what people shipped to Swenson, Pachmayr, Wilson, or Gunsite?

[RevolverRob]

In retrospect, no. But at the time it must have seemed a tempting alternative to GI guns, commercial Colts, and (for all I know) the odd Springer. Remember that this was right before Kimber pooped the bed with the early Series II teething problems and the external extractor debacle. At the turn of the millennium, Kimber was still a name to conjure with; an "off-the-rack custom" for not much more than new Colt money.


My point wasn't really about the success or failure of LAPD SWAT's .45 replacement, but about the quality of 1911s they worked with before that. Was the pre-Kimber LAPD pool of 1911s any different from what people shipped to Swenson, Pachmayr, Wilson, or Gunsite?

Without trying to start something - Does the quality of the input guns matter all that much? Or is it the quality of the output?

Here there are three arguments going on that I reason out. 1) That the 1911 requires more "maintenance" than a Glock at the large "unit" level. 2) That parts quality various widely in modern 1911s and that has a large effect on function and quality. 3) That John Moses Browning is the supreme being of gun design and should be the most prominent head carved into the Mt. GunMore Monument next to Sam Colt and Dan Wesson and Horace Smith.

Wait...maybe 3 isn't being debated....

One thought on point 2 - "Crappy" 1911 parts do not appear to exist prior to about 1994...

-Rob

[Tamara]

My point wasn't really about the success or failure of LAPD SWAT's .45 replacement, but about the quality of 1911s they worked with before that. Was the pre-Kimber LAPD pool of 1911s any different from what people shipped to Swenson, Pachmayr, Wilson, or Gunsite?

No, but Colt's did have a few pretty awful years in there.

And I'm not sure I'd want to ride herd on a random collection of customs from that era, either, which is what each and every one of those guns was, to a greater or lesser extent. (I'm assuming D Platoon guns received the kind of "by the gun logbook" PM that's kind of a wink and a nudge with most organizations.)

Theoretically, a TLE is "drop-in parts" compared to that.

[Stephen]

3) That John Moses Browning is the supreme being of gun design and should be the most prominent head carved into the Mt. GunMore Monument next to Sam Colt and Dan Wesson and Horace Smith.

Wait...maybe 3 isn't being debated....

It is now. JMB, Sam Colt, Col. Cooper, Alan Gura.

[45dotACP]

Actually, all the 1911s were made in Yonkers. The old "Clackamas" rollmarked ones were from when they were still running on a variance letter. ;)

I had a Clackamas rollmarked gun that was the bomb. Loved it. A friend had one that was his po-po duty gun for years and years until he switched departments and they made him tote a Glock.

Ah, learn something new every day.

With regards to 1911 durability, aside from a shock buff...what would break so quickly that nobody would trust it. Assuming you use Tripp 7 rounders, ETMs, or the colt hybrids (or Checkmate or Metalform equivalents), you need to replace a flatwire recoil spring when?

Excluding oil, (and really, what's a little lube among friends) I'd probably count on a well set up 1911 needing less preventative maintenance than a Glock with a coiled trigger return spring...or say...I dunno....a Lone Wolf connector. ;)

I'm not entirely sure when I should replace my extractor, but it's not til the quintuple digits as far as ammo expended goes, but I just worry if it fails the extractor function check. Which it doesn't. :cool:

[RevolverRob]

It is now. JMB, Sam Colt, Col. Cooper, Alan Gura.

Normally, I'd say you can't build a monument to folks who are still alive, but we'll make an exception for Gura.

I don't know about Cooper. What with guys like Bill Jordan and Jelly Bryce having lived...

[HCM]

Normally, I'd say you can't build a monument to folks who are still alive, but we'll make an exception for Gura.

I don't know about Cooper. What with guys like Bill Jordan and Jelly Bryce having lived...

I'd vote Cooper. While Bill Jordan and Jelly Bryce were awesome gunfighters, I'd argue Cooper's contributions as to the body of shooting processes in general such as the four rules, and as the "prophet" of modern gunfighting (Importance of awareness and two handed sighted fire etc.) are broader and have a more lasting impact.

[theJanitor]

I'm not entirely sure when I should replace my extractor, but it's not til the quintuple digits as far as ammo expended goes, but I just worry if it fails the extractor function check. Which it doesn't. :cool:

I have a Colt built by Frank Glenn, maybe 20 years ago. It's still on the same extractor, many thousands of rounds later. The hook is wearing away, and it hasn't passes the "extractor" test in years. My g17 has a couple more malfunctions that that gun over the last five years (since I've been paying attention).

My colts get maintained with aerosol cans of RC car cleaner, a boresnake, and slip2000 (cause that's what I keep for the AR). Maintenance intensive, they are not. And I agree, taking a 1911 down to the pins is easier for me than a glock.

[45dotACP]

I have a Colt built by Frank Glenn, maybe 20 years ago. It's still on the same extractor, many thousands of rounds later. The hook is wearing away, and it hasn't passes the "extractor" test in years. My g17 has a couple more malfunctions that that gun over the last five years (since I've been paying attention).

My colts get maintained with aerosol cans of RC car cleaner, a boresnake, and slip2000 (cause that's what I keep for the AR). Maintenance intensive, they are not. And I agree, taking a 1911 down to the pins is easier for me than a glock.
I believe it. If a leaf spring extractor were such a handicap for a pistol, then everyone who seriously shoots the 1911 would be running the Aftec extractor in their guns. And if a coil spring extractor would solve extractor problems, there wouldn't be Beretta shooters who have to clean the carbon off their externally mounted extractor every 5,000 rounds to prevent failures to extract

It doesn't add up to me...

[TCinVA]

The problem is more with getting a 1911 that is built right in the first place.

[theJanitor]

The problem is more with getting a 1911 that is built right in the first place.

And to be honest, I haven't bought a stock 1911 since 1997

[GJM]

I am not much of a Ruger fan, nor a production 1911 fan, but the reports I have heard suggest that the Ruger 1911 pistols seem to run. Anyone here had first hand experience with them?

[WilsonCombatRep]

This is a very interesting thread. The problem everyone's assumptions about 1911's as service pistols is that almost no one had any experience with a real 1911 or 1911A1 prior to umpteen parts and depot arsenal rebuilds using low bidder spare parts, magazines and depot style refurbishing.

A USGI issued gun as built by Colt or Rand or one of the contractors between 1912-1945 is a masterpiece of construction and assembly. Notice I say assembly as there is zero hand fitting in these guns-even extractors. Every single part was gauged to meet specs developed by Colt and the Ordnance dept. If a part didn't meet their specs it wasn't sold on the Commercial market or turned into a special edition-it was cut in half and buried in the yard. Or smelted down.

I behoove anyone who doesn't understand 1911's or is 1911 phobic to find a collector with a mint example of a real 1911/A1 and a real honest to goodness GI magazine of the same era who will let you shoot it with some quality mil-spec ball ammo. I guarantee it will feed, fire and function as long as you stand there and load the mag.

It will shoot a nice round 6" group at 50 yards and pinch your hand smartly and have little sights you can't see and a 6 pound trigger but it will function and fire every single time.

[TCinVA]

Word. They were built to a specification that is lost to time, or at least largely lost to our time.

[Clobbersaurus]

^^ Colt would have them, surely?

[DocGKR]

"A USGI issued gun as built by Colt or Rand or one of the contractors between 1912-1945 is a masterpiece of construction and assembly. Notice I say assembly as there is zero hand fitting in these guns-even extractors. Every single part was gauged to meet specs developed by Colt and the Ordnance dept. If a part didn't meet their specs it wasn't sold on the Commercial market or turned into a special edition-it was cut in half and buried in the yard. Or smelted down."

This is the key.

[KevinB]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Kev1911.jpg

Which leads to this...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Iraq%201911/IMG_3499.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Iraq%201911/IMG_3384.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Iraq%201911/1911-Iraq002.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Iraq%201911/1911-Iraq013.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Iraq%201911/1911-Iraq006.jpg

The gun ran everything but some rather shitty 1944 marked ball that the primers were 50/50 in (the M1911 ball was fresh)


Problems with 1911's these days is everyone makes parts and most parts are not designed to work together.

[WilsonCombatRep]

^^ Colt would have them, surely?

The specs are in the public domain but no one builds that gun anymore.

"Gauging" has gone the way of the dodo and replaced by CNC machines and magical mysteries like MIM and Castings.

A brand new gun built like the WW2 guns would cost as much as a Wilson Combat CQB and shoot half as accurately or as easily. But.. it would be fully interchangeable and require zero fitting. Something we cannot achieve yet.

[Tamara]

The specs are in the public domain but no one builds that gun anymore.

"Gauging" has gone the way of the dodo and replaced by CNC machines and magical mysteries like MIM and Castings.

A brand new gun built like the WW2 guns would cost as much as a Wilson Combat CQB and shoot half as accurately or as easily. But.. it would be fully interchangeable and require zero fitting. Something we cannot achieve yet.

Huh (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2011/02/m1911a1-vs-1911.html). ;)

[GJM]

This thread is causing trouble. Haven't seriously shot a 1911 in years. Grabbed a Wilson CQB and JoJo's Colt Rail Gun, and stuck them in my range bag heading out to our cabin tomorrow, brown bear and caribou hunting.

[WilsonCombatRep]

Huh (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2011/02/m1911a1-vs-1911.html). ;)

Damn bloggers!

[TCinVA]

The specs are in the public domain but no one builds that gun anymore.

"Gauging" has gone the way of the dodo and replaced by CNC machines and magical mysteries like MIM and Castings.

A brand new gun built like the WW2 guns would cost as much as a Wilson Combat CQB and shoot half as accurately or as easily. But.. it would be fully interchangeable and require zero fitting. Something we cannot achieve yet.

It's sort of like the handgun version of the Garand, then.

I had a "cheap 1911" conversation with someone a while back and I handed them my 1953 vintage M1 Garand. I explained how it was manufactured, had them look at the nice walnut stock, had them picture the huge hunks of forged steel that were whittled away by a bunch of careful machining processes to produce it, etc.

"Do you think somebody could actually produce that kind of rifle today for $400 bucks?"

"No..." they said "they'd have to cut a lot of corners to hit that price point."

Exactly.

[jetfire]

This thread is doing nothing to make me want a Colt 38 Super any less.

[45dotACP]

It's sort of like the handgun version of the Garand, then.

I had a "cheap 1911" conversation with someone a while back and I handed them my 1953 vintage M1 Garand. I explained how it was manufactured, had them look at the nice walnut stock, had them picture the huge hunks of forged steel that were whittled away by a bunch of careful machining processes to produce it, etc.

"Do you think somebody could actually produce that kind of rifle today for $400 bucks?"

"No..." they said "they'd have to cut a lot of corners to hit that price point."

Exactly.

To get the level of interchangeability WCR was talking about...yes.

To get a gun that works effectively...I still can't get there. Granted I can't speak to production 1911's, as I don't own a production 1911, but I think that a working production 1911 can be made...even in the age of CNC castings and forgings.

[RevolverRob]

This thread is doing nothing to make me want a Colt 38 Super any less.

I'm not going to say I've spent the day shopping for Colts or pricing out a Caspian slide and frame and a box full of parts to build my own...but I'm not not saying that....


To get the level of interchangeability WCR was talking about...yes.

To get a gun that works effectively...I still can't get there. Granted I can't speak to production 1911's, as I don't own a production 1911, but I think that a working production 1911 can be made...even in the age of CNC castings and forgings.

I'm actually a bit confused as to why in the age of CNC and MIM guns can't be made to the old GI specs. I mean metal is still metal - it has dimensions, and if the dimensions are the same...Maybe I am simplifying it too much? Is it the accuracy issue? I mean trying to market a 1911 that had a 6 pound trigger and 6 inch accuracy would be tough in a world where Wilson Combat CQBs and Colt Special Combat Governments exist. I mean that sincerely not as a dig to anyone here. I certainly do not have the expertise in 1911s, metallurgy, or gun construction.

[BWT]

This thread is doing nothing to make me want a Colt 38 Super any less.

Handled a TRP with my wife earlier today.

[Haraise]

Handled a TRP with my wife earlier today.

That's dangerous to your wallet.

Amazing gun for the money.

[JHC]

This thread is doing nothing to make me want a Colt 38 Super any less.

Any chance of a range report on that RIA 9mm you briefly mentioned ran so well?

[Hambo]

No, but Colt's did have a few pretty awful years in there.

And I'm not sure I'd want to ride herd on a random collection of customs from that era, either, which is what each and every one of those guns was, to a greater or lesser extent. (I'm assuming D Platoon guns received the kind of "by the gun logbook" PM that's kind of a wink and a nudge with most organizations.)

Theoretically, a TLE is "drop-in parts" compared to that.

I'm not saying I would either, but we can't inject modern thinking into the past. Circa 1970/80s, a random collection of semi-custom 1911s was as good as it got.

I don't have inside knowledge of what was going on with D Platoon pistols pre-Kimber. It could have been about the age/condition of what they had, but it could have had to do with their light system and that rails were obviously the future. It also could have been that a chief wanted everybody's pistol to look the same or that someone finally decided that they should actually buy pistols.

[threedogdad]

It's sort of like the handgun version of the Garand, then.

I had a "cheap 1911" conversation with someone a while back and I handed them my 1953 vintage M1 Garand. I explained how it was manufactured, had them look at the nice walnut stock, had them picture the huge hunks of forged steel that were whittled away by a bunch of careful machining processes to produce it, etc.

"Do you think somebody could actually produce that kind of rifle today for $400 bucks?"

"No..." they said "they'd have to cut a lot of corners to hit that price point."


Very good point. Springfield Armory's early attempt to make M1 rifles using cast Lithgow receivers from Australia comes to mind.

[GJM]

Growing up in CT when I did, I had a ringside seat watching the implosion of Colt, Winchester and other fine firearms manufacturers, as their quality and market share collapsed.

[Jaywalker]

A USGI issued gun as built by Colt or Rand or one of the contractors between 1912-1945 is a masterpiece of construction and assembly. Notice I say assembly as there is zero hand fitting in these guns-even extractors. Every single part was gauged to meet specs developed by Colt and the Ordnance dept. If a part didn't meet their specs it wasn't sold on the Commercial market or turned into a special edition-it was cut in half and buried in the yard. Or smelted down.

This is a revelation to me, as it runs counter to what I thought I knew. I ran a DOD contract administration shop in the 1980s, and one of the contract deliveries we rejected was 14,000 1911 slides that were indeed out of spec. What I thought I understood until now was that there was no formal "data package" produced back when the 1911 was spec'd, and that its early high level of performance was due to now worn-out tools and retired machinists who were no longer present to impart their magic. I may have to review a lifetime of error.

The bad slides became part of a new product line for the contractor, FWIW, which does indeed fit the thread's theme of non-standard parts.

[Lomshek]

I'm actually a bit confused as to why in the age of CNC and MIM guns can't be made to the old GI specs. I mean metal is still metal - it has dimensions, and if the dimensions are the same...Maybe I am simplifying it too much? Is it the accuracy issue?
I mean trying to market a 1911 that had a 6 pound trigger and 6 inch accuracy would be tough in a world where Wilson Combat CQBs and Colt Special Combat Governments exist. I mean that sincerely not as a dig to anyone here. I certainly do not have the expertise in 1911s, metallurgy, or gun construction.



It will shoot a nice round 6" group at 50 yards and pinch your hand smartly and have little sights you can't see and a 6 pound trigger but it will function and fire every single time.

Don't forget that was at 50 yards Bob! How many of our crunchentickers have a "horrible" 6 pound two stage trigger with a clean'ish break and can hold 3" 25 yard groups?

My awesome factory M&P 9 has a 6 stage trigger that was closer to 8 pounds (Thank God for Apex) and can't do 6" at 25 yards. I daresay 3" is pushing it for a Glock and the trigger is in the same boat from the factory (except maybe the competition model).

[Duces Tecum]

It's sort of like the handgun version of the Garand, then.

I had a "cheap 1911" conversation with someone a while back and I handed them my 1953 vintage M1 Garand. I explained how it was manufactured, had them look at the nice walnut stock, had them picture the huge hunks of forged steel that were whittled away by a bunch of careful machining processes to produce it, etc.

"Do you think somebody could actually produce that kind of rifle today for $400 bucks?"

"No..." they said "they'd have to cut a lot of corners to hit that price point."

Exactly.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics $400 in 1953 is the equivalent of $3,569.29 now.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

[TCinVA]

I'm actually a bit confused as to why in the age of CNC and MIM guns can't be made to the old GI specs. I mean metal is still metal - it has dimensions, and if the dimensions are the same...Maybe I am simplifying it too much? Is it the accuracy issue? I mean trying to market a 1911 that had a 6 pound trigger and 6 inch accuracy would be tough in a world where Wilson Combat CQBs and Colt Special Combat Governments exist. I mean that sincerely not as a dig to anyone here. I certainly do not have the expertise in 1911s, metallurgy, or gun construction.

To make guns to the GI spec would require not using MIM parts, for one thing. You could certainly produce an original GI spec gun...but the point being made was that it would require expensive materials, expensive machining, expensive quality control and the end result would be a newly produced GI 1911 that cost custom gun money. Who wants that?

[45dotACP]

To make guns to the GI spec would require not using MIM parts, for one thing. You could certainly produce an original GI spec gun...but the point being made was that it would require expensive materials, expensive machining, expensive quality control and the end result would be a newly produced GI 1911 that cost custom gun money. Who wants that?
I seem to recall that MIM isn't the problem...it's the use of substandard MIM that causes issues.

[jetfire]

Any chance of a range report on that RIA 9mm you briefly mentioned ran so well?

The short version: we had a Rock Island "GI-style" 9mm gun in the office for quite some time. Shelley used it to compete in a couple of matches, and when we used good 9mm magazines, it ran like a stud. The trigger wasn't great, the sights were vestigial, but it shot just fine. I think we finally sold it off after about 5,000 or so rounds.

As a note of comparison, at the same time we had a multi-kilobuck custom 9mm 1911 from a fairly prestigious maker whose name I won't mention (no one in this thread, that I'm aware of) which took a tremendous amount of end-user tinkering to get it to run right. Mostly dicking with springs, but the RIA ran when the high end gun wouldn't.

[WilsonCombatRep]

It's sort of like the handgun version of the Garand, then.

I had a "cheap 1911" conversation with someone a while back and I handed them my 1953 vintage M1 Garand. I explained how it was manufactured, had them look at the nice walnut stock, had them picture the huge hunks of forged steel that were whittled away by a bunch of careful machining processes to produce it, etc.

"Do you think somebody could actually produce that kind of rifle today for $400 bucks?"

"No..." they said "they'd have to cut a lot of corners to hit that price point."

Exactly.

Absolutely BINGO! We have a winner. The Garand was actually in my brain when I was writing the post.

People who shart on the 1911 are showing their lack of exposure to the true platform. Kind of like people who shart all over AR's for similar reasons.

[Tamara]

As a note of comparison, at the same time we had a multi-kilobuck custom 9mm 1911 from a fairly prestigious maker whose name I won't mention (no one in this thread, that I'm aware of) which took a tremendous amount of end-user tinkering to get it to run right. Mostly dicking with springs, but the RIA ran when the high end gun wouldn't.

Huh.

I had the chance to go hands-on with a T&E 9mm "CCO" from ($big_name_custom_house_not_in_this_thread) and the thing malfed half a dozen times in the course of not much more than that many magazines. It did not like a particular loading; I want to say it was WinClean 147s that were giving it fits, but I've slept since then.

As a side note, what's up with all the 9mm 1911s all of a sudden? I blame Todd.

I still maintain that "1911-pattern" pistols that do not have 5" barrels and use full-length cartridges are Abominations Unto Nuggan. (Some of them may be very reliable Abominations Unto Nuggan, mind you, but they are still abominations.)

[Malamute]

I behoove anyone who doesn't understand 1911's or is 1911 phobic to find a collector with a mint example of a real 1911/A1 and a real honest to goodness GI magazine of the same era who will let you shoot it with some quality mil-spec ball ammo. I guarantee it will feed, fire and function as long as you stand there and load the mag.

It will shoot a nice round 6" group at 50 yards and pinch your hand smartly and have little sights you can't see and a 6 pound trigger but it will function and fire every single time.

What would be todays equivalent of original GI magazines? I have a Colt made in 1914. I have two factory Colt mags I've had since the early 80's (they have an "M" marked on them if that means anything). I have other magazines, but those are the ones I carry in it and have for first reload. The only mag that's caused trouble has been a 10 rd Mec-Gar I believe. I mostly shoot 230 gr FMJ or cast for practice, but have thought of using the 200 gr SWC loads again, until reading they may not like the same mags.

I'm guessing its not been rebuilt much, virtually all the parts besides the barrel were 1911 parts, not A-1 upgrade parts. I found a factory Colt commercial barrel for it.

The 3" groups seems about right, what little I've shot it on paper.

[abu fitna]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics $400 in 1953 is the equivalent of $3,569.29 now.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

I seem to recall that the original purchase price per unit (pistol alone, not counting accessory value, maintenance, etc.) was $25 for the initial tranche of 1911's as first adopted.

That would translate to $601 on simple inflation.

Of course, cost of labour today is a very different thing... but perhaps this speaks to the relative stability of firearms prices, and the need for successful products intended for general issue use sales to hit that magic Glock sticker number. Explains the Volkspistol, to say the least.

[jetfire]

Huh.

I had the chance to go hands-on with a T&E 9mm "CCO" from ($big_name_custom_house_not_in_this_thread) and the thing malfed half a dozen times in the course of not much more than that many magazines. It did not like a particular loading; I want to say it was WinClean 147s that were giving it fits, but I've slept since then.

As a side note, what's up with all the 9mm 1911s all of a sudden? I blame Todd.

I still maintain that "1911-pattern" pistols that do not have 5" barrels and use full-length cartridges are Abominations Unto Nuggan. (Some of them may be very reliable Abominations Unto Nuggan, mind you, but they are still abominations.)

I really liked the way the 9mm guns shot in terms of felt recoil and blah blah...this is why I'm currently eye-banging a Series 80 .38 Super. Because full length cartridge.

[tomr]

Huh.

I had the chance to go hands-on with a T&E 9mm "CCO" from ($big_name_custom_house_not_in_this_thread) and the thing malfed half a dozen times in the course of not much more than that many magazines. It did not like a particular loading; I want to say it was WinClean 147s that were giving it fits, but I've slept since then.

As a side note, what's up with all the 9mm 1911s all of a sudden? I blame Todd.

I still maintain that "1911-pattern" pistols that do not have 5" barrels and use full-length cartridges are Abominations Unto Nuggan. (Some of them may be very reliable Abominations Unto Nuggan, mind you, but they are still abominations.)

"full-length cartridges" ??

[Tamara]

"full-length cartridges" ??

.38 Super/10mm Auto/.45 ACP. Cartridges that don't need a spacer in a 1911 magazine to function properly.

[JHC]

The short version: we had a Rock Island "GI-style" 9mm gun in the office for quite some time. Shelley used it to compete in a couple of matches, and when we used good 9mm magazines, it ran like a stud. The trigger wasn't great, the sights were vestigial, but it shot just fine. I think we finally sold it off after about 5,000 or so rounds.

As a note of comparison, at the same time we had a multi-kilobuck custom 9mm 1911 from a fairly prestigious maker whose name I won't mention (no one in this thread, that I'm aware of) which took a tremendous amount of end-user tinkering to get it to run right. Mostly dicking with springs, but the RIA ran when the high end gun wouldn't.

Excellent. Cut out all the blah blah blah and cut to the chase. That's interesting as hell.

[45dotACP]

I really liked the way the 9mm guns shot in terms of felt recoil and blah blah...this is why I'm currently eye-banging a Series 80 .38 Super. Because full length cartridge.
It'd be even better without the series 80 parts ;)

Next gun I build is gonna be a Super, but that's an easy 5 years away. The idea of 10 rounds of what is pretty much 9 mm +p+ is always cool. Although I've toyed with the idea of a 2011 build....

[jetfire]

It'd be even better without the series 80 parts ;)

Next gun I build is gonna be a Super, but that's an easy 5 years away. The idea of 10 rounds of what is pretty much 9 mm +p+ is always cool. Although I've toyed with the idea of a 2011 build....

I agree, I wish Colt would sell more Series 70 guns.

[45dotACP]

I agree, I wish Colt would sell more Series 70 guns.
Come now, that's crazy talk. Next you'll be wishing Glock made a compact 9mm single stack. :D

[tomr]

I agree, I wish Colt would sell more Series 70 guns.

Actually I wish they'd make more pre series 70's pistols. Am I the only one that thinks the redo of Series 70 is a little weird? The S70 was a collet bushing gun - not a good thing. Its not a pre 80 series, firing pin safety gun. And the new series 70 doesn't have a collet. Two wrongs make a right? And to get through all that you get the bill board roll marking. To get Colt to do the right thing, and Im with GJM here having lived in CT and worked in the industry in those years, maybe if we asked Colt, nicely (as in more clearly) they could figure out what to do?

[Robinson]

I really liked the way the 9mm guns shot in terms of felt recoil and blah blah...this is why I'm currently eye-banging a Series 80 .38 Super. Because full length cartridge.

Yeah I like mine. .38 Super is a really nice cartridge to shoot. My Series 80 doesn't like Aguila ammo, but feeds everything else I've tried.

[JHC]

Come now, that's crazy talk. Next you'll be wishing Glock made a compact 9mm single stack. :D

I hear back channels round heyah that's not so far off. Hard to say though.

[45dotACP]

I hear back channels round heyah that's not so far off. Hard to say though.

I'll be waiting with baited breath, soldering iron in one hand and dremel in the other :D

[theJanitor]

Actually I wish they'd make more pre series 70's pistols.

I don't think they can. Many of their custom shop pistols aren't as nicely finished as most Commercials. I think the Pre-70's are the most beautiful 1911's colt has made. I'm lucky to have a few Colts from this era.

[Tamara]

I think the Pre-70's are the most beautiful 1911's colt has made.

Mine's all covered in paint.

(Roomie has an equally-vintage .38 Super that some previous owner killed with a buffing wheel doing a re-blue. I've been trying to talk her out of it unsuccessfully, because that thing would be a 20 lpi, Trijicon-wearin', beavertail-havin', Cerakoted carry beast faster than you could say "Hello? Gunsmith Bob?")

[theJanitor]

Mine's all covered in paint.


You mean bluing, right? Or grease. Or cosmoline....:(

[farscott]

As an engineer (electrical, not mechanical, so no Dr. Riehl), a 1911 shooter for more than a quarter century, and a glutton for punishment, I have noted several things about 1911 pattern pistols.

1) There are as many schools of "correct 1911" fit as there are opinions on 9x19 versus .45 ACP. Thus, there are no true dimensions to use for the holy grail, especially in this age of beavertail. Some want loose, some want tight, and some want smooth, and all of these contradict the others in terms of dimensions. I believe this is the reason why Wilson Combat uses only parts of their design and manufacture; they get a set of parts that should all work together. For the most part, Wilson does well, but even they have the occasional problem child.

2) Drop-in means the part is probably not going to, and if it does, it is too small in some critical dimension(s). Hand-fitting is important in the era of no common prints and tolerances.

3) 9x19 is really marginal in a five-inch 1911 due to weak recoil impulse, short round, and the myriad of both magazine designs and barrel/frame ramps.

4) The 1911 is probably the easiest gun to detail strip, maybe because of all the practice I get.

5) The five-inch gun in a full-length cartridge is the most reliable. The 9x19 is much more reliable in the original Colt Commander (lightened slide and all) than in any other design. Sad to say as I have a fair number of five-inch 9x19 variants.

6) Magazines are crucial for the 1911, especially the 9x19. And no one builds a 9x19 magazine that is reliable in every 9x19 1911. The closes I have seen is the Metalform "Springfield Ramp". 8-round .45 ACP magazines for the 1911 are the devil.

7) Friction between the frame and slide and in barrel lockup are crucial in 1911s, especially with weaker loads. Usually too much friction resulting in too little slide travel or too little resulting in the slide outrunning the magazine springs. For the latter, most people use the recoil spring weight to tweak instead of adjusting the firing pin stop radius and where the hammer is impacted by the firing pin stop.

8) Glock pistols will be like 1911s in twenty years as the aftermarket forces the same issues to the forefront. Once someone "improves" the Glock magazine, it is all over. The MIM extractor debacle is just the beginning.

[Jeep]

I agree, I wish Colt would sell more Series 70 guns.

Does Colt sell any non-Series 80 in 38 Super? All I have ever seen are stainless steel, Series 80 guns, when everyone knows that all 38 Supers north of the border should be blued, pre-Series 70 with improved sights.

I can't rationally justify a 38 Super since a decent 9 mm can do almost everything it can do--but they are still terrific pistols, so long, of course, that they are blued and not Series 80.

[Robinson]

Does Colt sell any non-Series 80 in 38 Super? All I have ever seen are stainless steel, Series 80 guns, when everyone knows that all 38 Supers north of the border should be blued, pre-Series 70 with improved sights.

I can't rationally justify a 38 Super since a decent 9 mm can do almost everything it can do--but they are still terrific pistols, so long, of course, that they are blued and not Series 80.

Not currently, just a stainless one. I snagged my blued Series 80 right before they discontinued the blued model.

I don't get the strong dislike for the Series 80 guns. I have two Series 80 guns and a Series 70 repro. The repro has a very slightly better trigger.

[Tamara]

Some want loose...

There most certainly are correct dimensions.

People who want "loose" are frequently found to be basing their understanding of 1911s on the shot-out example they qualified with in 1975 and not an LNIB vintage M1911. ;)

[tomr]

1. The 1911 and Glock are the best designed guns out there. This is subjective, feel free to disagree. I consider the 1911 a rebuild-able item, and the Glock a throw away item. The 1911 is a marvel of efficiency of design, as is the Glock. I'll give the nod to ease of disassembly to the 1911. The Glock trigger itself is a bit of a PITA. Economy of function is an art, and JMB was a master.
"

Professor, initially I was knee-jerk on board. Completely in agreement. Then I got thinking.

Which 1911 did you have in mind? Was it John Browning's original, designed around the metallurgy and process technology of 1911 and the attendant limited service life, with gritty triggers, noseum sights, true drop in parts, and slide biting grip tang or a modern highly evolved Wilson Combat CQB, with excellent metallurgy, fits, finishes, trigger and improved ergos, (not to mention great magazines)? There have been many makers of 1911s right from the get go. All have not been equal, but competition has forced evolution of this particular firearm, and while there might still be some less desirable choices today, the best are really better than the originals in about any way one can name - no?

The conversation around Glock feels different. Indeed, greater bang for the buck, incorporating 1980's latest, then modern process technologies to yield a serviceable product that, simplifies training and handling, less weight, more bullets, all while while defying inflation. And yes kind of a disposable. Like Coca Cola, being the first with a new idea counts, and the Glock brand and market share are impressive. Unlike the 1911 though, only Glock makes Glocks. So the evolution of that design is not a Glock, (at least to date). Isn't it fair to say Glock leap-frogged more 1911 evolutionary designs like Sig's P226, Beretta's 92, or HK's USP hammer fired models? But can it be that the new and improved Glock-like pistol for a fair comparison with the modern evolved 1911 is "potentially" an M&P, FNS, PPQ, VP9, 320, or something we haven't yet seen?

[Jeep]

Not currently, just a stainless one. I snagged my blued Series 80 right before they discontinued the blued model.

I don't get the strong dislike for the Series 80 guns. I have two Series 80 guns and a Series 70 repro. The repro has a very slightly better trigger.

To me it has extra parts that degrade the trigger a bit and aren't needed. I'm a fan of safeties, but I don't think a 1911 needs a firing pin safety--which I think was amply proved in the 70 years before Colt decided that one was a good idea.

[JHC]

But can it be that the new and improved Glock-like pistol for a fair comparison with the modern evolved 1911 is "potentially" an M&P, FNS, PPQ, VP9, 320, or something we haven't yet seen?

No. They are new. They may have a feature here or there that many like more than Glocks. None of them(except the 320 per Bruce Gray) are especially simple in design which was one of the OPs hallmarks of a top design. Aficionados yes. Game changers like Glock was? Not even. What is impressive is the amount of effort that has gone into designing and rolling out "Glock-like" pistols that offer so little more at the cost of complexity or in some cases fragility of certain components until debugged hopefully. But if you wanna be the champ, you gotta beat the champ. ;)

[RevolverRob]

No. They are new. They may have a feature here or there that many like more than Glocks. None of them(except the 320 per Bruce Gray) are especially simple in design which was one of the OPs hallmarks of a top design. Aficionados yes. Game changers like Glock was? Not even. What is impressive is the amount of effort that has gone into designing and rolling out "Glock-like" pistols that offer so little more at the cost of complexity or in some cases fragility of certain components until debugged hopefully. But if you wanna be the champ, you gotta beat the champ. ;)

This is actually spot-on. As much as it pains me to say this, the Glock is the modern equivalent of a M1911A1. Manufacturing costs, simplicity, reliability, accuracy, even the trigger pull weights are very similar. The guns aren't twins, more like successors in the lineage of military and police firearms. A lineage that runs from Colt Patersons, through 1851 Navies, 1873 SAAs, Model 10 Smiths...you get the point.

So the comparison to the 1911 is appropriate. And none of the other guns out there can compare, the M&P is the closest and it's still a pale second or third depending on how you view it. The next champion of the gun world will be compared to 1911s by magazine writers, but the appropriate comparison will be with the Glock 17 and Glock 19. And that gun doesn't exist yet. And frankly, I'm not sure, that that gun, won't be a radical departure. As much as it pains me to say this, the Glock 17 is an excellent representative of 160+ years of repeating arms development...and until caseless ammunition or phasers come in, that's unlikely to change.

-Rob

[BWT]

Huh.

I had the chance to go hands-on with a T&E 9mm "CCO" from ($big_name_custom_house_not_in_this_thread) and the thing malfed half a dozen times in the course of not much more than that many magazines. It did not like a particular loading; I want to say it was WinClean 147s that were giving it fits, but I've slept since then.

As a side note, what's up with all the 9mm 1911s all of a sudden? I blame Todd.

I still maintain that "1911-pattern" pistols that do not have 5" barrels and use full-length cartridges are Abominations Unto Nuggan. (Some of them may be very reliable Abominations Unto Nuggan, mind you, but they are still abominations.)

I see 9mm 1911's keeping the 1911 legacy alive long term. If there was a 9mm TRP equivalent with effective magazines as available for .45 ACP; I would probably go with that. I enjoy the .45 ACP, but I'd like to have a 9mm as much if not more for practical reasons.

The closest is the Warren's at near double the price. However, SA is releasing more and more 9mm. Hackathorn does carry a 9mm 1911 IIRC for training and .45 for carry when he does carry a 1911.

As a side note, with all of the trainers going into other guns and leaving the 1911. They do have financial interests in other products. Hack and LAV helped design the HK45 and P30; I wouldn't say they are completely bias. However, I also wouldn't say it's impossible that they recommend guns they helped design either.

To state it plainly VTAC is associated with S&W. Chen makes parts for the M&P (although he did the 1911 too). ETA: (fat-fingered submit earlier) LAV and Hackathorn are both connected to HK and Wilson Combat. Randy Lee designs parts for Glock and M&P. Bruce Gray design parts for and services HKs and Sig.

Writing a college paper tonight; in an academic sense I could not consider them 100% objective.

No offense to those guys or slight on their character; it's just reality.

It also shocks me that people sit and take what certain dealers say as gospel about the inadequacy of the 1911 versus other platforms when dealers/trainers are either distributors of other platforms or are associated fiscally with other platforms.

ETA 2: To put it in laymen's terms. When he was still alive; I would not be surprised to hear Carol Shelby recommend Ford vehicles. Does he own ford? No. Did he race for years and use different brand vehicles? Yes. (Similar to the guys with prior military service above using M16's, 1911's, etc) But now, he makes his living off modifying Fords. At one time he was legitimately objective. However, the moment his company had a financial interest in a car; via his aftermarket services or racing packages. He's no longer 100% objective. Could he be stating the truth as he sees it always and could any other cited trainer/dealer/designer/custom shop be stating the truth 100%?

Absolutely. However, they are receiving financial benefit from the designs they recommend being utilized and therefore, their opinions on these matters should be considered in that light.

I'm not saying anyone is blatantly lying and of questionable character. But, it is an elephant in the room; whether it's stated or not.

[GardoneVT]

Professor, initially I was knee-jerk on board. Completely in agreement. Then I got thinking.

Which 1911 did you have in mind? Was it John Browning's original, designed around the metallurgy and process technology of 1911 and the attendant limited service life, with gritty triggers, noseum sights, true drop in parts, and slide biting grip tang or a modern highly evolved Wilson Combat CQB, with excellent metallurgy, fits, finishes, trigger and improved ergos, (not to mention great magazines)? There have been many makers of 1911s right from the get go. All have not been equal, but competition has forced evolution of this particular firearm, and while there might still be some less desirable choices today, the best are really better than the originals in about any way one can name - no?

The conversation around Glock feels different. Indeed, greater bang for the buck, incorporating 1980's latest, then modern process technologies to yield a serviceable product that, simplifies training and handling, less weight, more bullets, all while while defying inflation. And yes kind of a disposable. Like Coca Cola, being the first with a new idea counts, and the Glock brand and market share are impressive. Unlike the 1911 though, only Glock makes Glocks. So the evolution of that design is not a Glock, (at least to date). Isn't it fair to say Glock leap-frogged more 1911 evolutionary designs like Sig's P226, Beretta's 92, or HK's USP hammer fired models? But can it be that the new and improved Glock-like pistol for a fair comparison with the modern evolved 1911 is "potentially" an M&P, FNS, PPQ, VP9, 320, or something we haven't yet seen?

As the resident contrarian, Ill submit the success of Glock can be summed up in one word;

Marketing.

The world, far as I can tell, managed just fine before Gaston Glock decided to act on his inside knowledge of the Austrian militarys need for new sidearms. The reason his product has surpassed his competition is because he knew marketing better then the competition.

He knew the more cops who carried his gun, it meant more Average Joes who'd buy it for that reason.
He knew as long as the administrative structure felt like his gun was "safe" and "training budget friendly" , he'd be light years ahead of the "precisely machined" competition.

He knew the more generals and chiefs he wined and dined, the better received his product would be come evaluation time.

To this day, I find it astounding that gun firms which have been around for centuries still don't grasp basic human marketing.People as a whole give less then two kittens about facts when buying any consumer good; they care about how their friends and neighbors think when they take home Product X. Social power builds behind the brand to the point where the poor History Book is simply ignored. Hence "Glock Invented the Polymer Pistol". Glock did for guns what Apple did for their iPhone; made their product seem socially indespensible.

Which is why I have to laugh when companies build a "Glock Challenger" . Hardware is NOT the point.

[Tamara]

BWT,

I have no idea what realities of the firearms industry you were trying to explain to me. :confused:

[BWT]

BWT,

I have no idea what realities of the firearms industry you were trying to explain to me. :confused:

I've been going off on other tangents in your replies lately. First the 1911 Mags in the BHP thread. Now this; I should've transitioned ideas better. I'll fix it.

ETA: I can't modify it, the first two stanzas applied to you in regards to 9mm 1911's. After "As a side note", I discussed what I thought was pertinent info about qualified opinions often referenced when being dismissive of the 1911.

[Tamara]

Just my opinion, but I really don't think .45ACP is in any danger of going anywhere for several decades to come...

It's easy to get into a Pauline Kael "But everybody I know shoots 9mm!" loop... I know I tend that way ...and then I go to the range with Shootin' Buddy who took up reloading rather than go to a cheaper caliber. :o

[45dotACP]

It's funny, someone said earlier in this thread that a .38 super doesn't do anything a 9mm already does...my first thought "Well, neither does a .45, but that didn't stop John Moses Browning."

Sooo, 'Merica!

If .38 super, 357 sig and 10 mm has stuck around, I'm not worried about .45

[tomr]

Just my opinion, but I really don't think .45ACP is in any danger of going anywhere for several decades to come...

It's easy to get into a Pauline Kael "But everybody I know shoots 9mm!" loop... I know I tend that way ...and then I go to the range with Shootin' Buddy who took up reloading rather than go to a cheaper caliber. :o

Indeed, to divert from my own couple other queries above - just for a moment. One of my "45s" has a 9# recoil spring and shoots 185 SWCs @ 710FPS. I like nines and get the argument for them and like that there's different pistols to play with. But the above is low in recoil and as cheap (mebbe cheaper) to shoot. Combine this with others setup and loads for MPF... well, its all good.

[BWT]

Just my opinion, but I really don't think .45ACP is in any danger of going anywhere for several decades to come...

It's easy to get into a Pauline Kael "But everybody I know shoots 9mm!" loop... I know I tend that way ...and then I go to the range with Shootin' Buddy who took up reloading rather than go to a cheaper caliber. :o

I would agree about the .45 ACP. However, when discussing 9mm platforms the 1911 seems to be becoming more a part of the landscape now than ever. At least with more magazines being offered, etc. different faces using them. The 1911 was always synonymous with .45 ACP; to a lesser degree .38 Super and 10mm. I think we're seeing genuine excitement for 9mm and I think 10 round magazines offer enough firepower and are most ban state legal. Who knows?

Todd's test did help offer legitimacy to 9mm 1911's IMHO. I think the 9mm 1911 is going to be a growth area; I think that SA getting some midline models out will help. I would feel safe buying a cheaper SA 9mm than a cheaper STI 9mm.

[Haraise]

I would agree about the .45 ACP. However, when discussing 9mm platforms the 1911 seems to be becoming more a part of the landscape now than ever. At least with more magazines being offered, etc. different faces using them. The 1911 was always synonymous with .45 ACP; to a lesser degree .38 Super and 10mm. I think we're seeing genuine excitement for 9mm and I think 10 round magazines offer enough firepower and are most ban state legal. Who knows?

Todd's test did help offer legitimacy to 9mm 1911's IMHO. I think the 9mm 1911 is going to be a growth area; I think that SA getting some midline models out will help. I would feel safe buying a cheaper SA 9mm than a cheaper STI 9mm.

I keep bugging Springfield about making a larger EMP.

A 1911 redesigned around the 9mm/.40 could be the way to the future.

[mizer67]

Just my opinion, but I really don't think .45ACP is in any danger of going anywhere for several decades to come...

It's easy to get into a Pauline Kael "But everybody I know shoots 9mm!" loop... I know I tend that way ...and then I go to the range with Shootin' Buddy who took up reloading rather than go to a cheaper caliber. :o

Too much internet reading has me wanting a 1911 in God's caliber.....

Reloading JHP 9mm costs me ~$.14 per round, FMJ .45 would be ~$.19.

5 cents per round doesn't hurt as much.

[SteveK]

As the resident contrarian, Ill submit the success of Glock can be summed up in one word;

Marketing.

The world, far as I can tell, managed just fine before Gaston Glock decided to act on his inside knowledge of the Austrian militarys need for new sidearms. The reason his product has surpassed his competition is because he knew marketing better then the competition.

He knew the more cops who carried his gun, it meant more Average Joes who'd buy it for that reason.
He knew as long as the administrative structure felt like his gun was "safe" and "training budget friendly" , he'd be light years ahead of the "precisely machined" competition.

He knew the more generals and chiefs he wined and dined, the better received his product would be come evaluation time.

To this day, I find it astounding that gun firms which have been around for centuries still don't grasp basic human marketing.People as a whole give less then two kittens about facts when buying any consumer good; they care about how their friends and neighbors think when they take home Product X. Social power builds behind the brand to the point where the poor History Book is simply ignored. Hence "Glock Invented the Polymer Pistol". Glock did for guns what Apple did for their iPhone; made their product seem socially indespensible.

Which is why I have to laugh when companies build a "Glock Challenger" . Hardware is NOT the point.

This may be the best assessment of Glock success I've ever read. Spot on. Glock's marketing is truly what has made it the world's leader in weapon sales. Glock literally gave away thousands of pistols to become the leading law enforcement provider in this country knowing the many others would follow suite and buy what the cops were carrying. They have created a huge fan base and have captured the market share. It's a very good product but not so much better than Beretta, HK, S&W or Sig. Truly, marketing IS everything, even in the gun game.

[tomr]

This may be the best assessment of Glock success I've ever read. Spot on. Glock's marketing is truly what has made it the world's leader in weapon sales. Glock literally gave away thousands of pistols to become the leading law enforcement provider in this country knowing the many others would follow suite and buy what the cops were carrying. They have created a huge fan base and have captured the market share. It's a very good product but not so much better than Beretta, HK, S&W or Sig. Truly, marketing IS everything, even in the gun game.

A read of the Glock book, certainly described this. But to paraphrase Lloyd Bentson, "Gaston, you're no John Browning" .... Sorry, I digress. Mr. Glock is more Sam Colt, then John Moses. But I would disagree, marketing isn't everything. It is an integral part. You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Glock's success has gone on too long, for it to be just marketing, unless you include in your definition of marketing, product management, which entails the study of the enduser/product interaction, and identifies the path to new and improved.

But back to my question. The 1911 as we know it today is an evolved form. It has benefitted from modern process technology and metallurgical advances. It has earned its continuing place in hearts and minds. Glock's Gen 2, 3, and 4 are evolutions, if less significant ones. Glock stubbornly clings to a controversial grip angle. There is suspicion, that it relies on Tennifer for surface part hardness and the underlying metallurgy, isn't optimum for long term durability. Of course that latter contributes to its lower cost/price and ability to win government contracts - Bill's throw away comment. The trigger, is controversial. All the others, trying to take market share from Glock contribute to the evolution of the Glock form. Read pistol-forum for any time at all and we have to - don't we - see there's a bunch of competing designs that are making an attempt at "new and improved?" A hundred years from today will we see an evolved and optimized Glock or will it be some other company's evolved form of the Glock?

[will_1400]

Professor, initially I was knee-jerk on board. Completely in agreement. Then I got thinking.
Like Coca Cola, being the first with a new idea counts, and the Glock brand and market share are impressive.

Glock really didn't have much of a "new idea". H&K beat them out with a less-expensive*, polymer-framed handgun with the VP70 more than 12 years prior to the G17's introduction.

*I could be wrong about the "less-expensive" bit since this is H&K after all.

[JHC]

A read of the Glock book, certainly described this. But to paraphrase Lloyd Bentson, "Gaston, you're no John Browning" .... Sorry, I digress. Mr. Glock is more Sam Colt, then John Moses. But I would disagree, marketing isn't everything. It is an integral part. You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Glock's success has gone on too long, for it to be just marketing, unless you include in your definition of marketing, product management, which entails the study of the enduser/product interaction, and identifies the path to new and improved.

But back to my question. The 1911 as we know it today is an evolved form. It has benefitted from modern process technology and metallurgical advances. It has earned its continuing place in hearts and minds. Glock's Gen 2, 3, and 4 are evolutions, if less significant ones. Glock stubbornly clings to a controversial grip angle. There is suspicion, that it relies on Tennifer for surface part hardness and the underlying metallurgy, isn't optimum for long term durability. Of course that latter contributes to its lower cost/price and ability to win government contracts - Bill's throw away comment. The trigger, is controversial. All the others, trying to take market share from Glock contribute to the evolution of the Glock form. Read pistol-forum for any time at all and we have to - don't we - see there's a bunch of competing designs that are making an attempt at "new and improved?" A hundred years from today will we see an evolved and optimized Glock or will it be some other company's evolved form of the Glock?

You raise really interesting questions. Re the bolded - it's the best I've ever used, even though I dedicated the '80's to the 1911 which I consider "meh" for "natural pointing". I think Surf has opined similiarly.

The funniest thing Hack said in the weekend class was about the Glock grip angle. "Everything the Krauts know about grip angle they learned from shooting people in a ditch!" Crimony I nearly pissed myself. :D I dunno, I totally dig it.

[SteveK]

Ken does have a way with words.

[JHC]

Ken does have a way with words.

I think I misquoted. I think it was "about pistol shooting" vs grip angle. And I think it was a more unusual term than "Kraut" but I can't come up with it right now.

[Jeep]

It's funny, someone said earlier in this thread that a .38 super doesn't do anything a 9mm already does...my first thought "Well, neither does a .45, but that didn't stop John Moses Browning."

Sooo, 'Merica!

If .38 super, 357 sig and 10 mm has stuck around, I'm not worried about .45


In fairness to JMB, he designed the 1911 long before there were quality 9 mm hollow points. When limited to FMJ rounds, the .45 is materially better than the normal pointy 9 mm bullet because it punches a materially bigger hole. Indeed, with all else being equal, it is probable that quality .45 hollow points still punch a somewhat bigger hole than quality 9mm punch (on average), although the difference probably doesn't matter much.

[TCinVA]

In fairness to JMB, he designed the 1911 long before there were quality 9 mm hollow points. When limited to FMJ rounds, the .45 is materially better than the normal pointy 9 mm bullet because it punches a materially bigger hole. Indeed, with all else being equal, it is probable that quality .45 hollow points still punch a somewhat bigger hole than quality 9mm punch (on average), although the difference probably doesn't matter much.

He was also in America. We like big calibers...and at the time there was this nostalgia thing going on where people were saying the equivalent of "Remember how those Peacemakers used to knock 'em dead? Not like these puny new-fangled things with their little bullet and swing-out cylinder!"

So Mr. Browning made a semi-automatic Peacemaker.

Note that there are still lots of people in the military pining for a .45 handgun.

[DocGKR]

If one is illogically restricted from using modern expanding defensive handgun ammunition, there might be some sense to using .45 Auto, otherwise the benefits of reduced recoil, increased magazine capacity, lighter weight, and enhanced durability of 9 mm handguns tend to make them the best choice at present. Lot's of old West gunslingers did good work with the Colt 1851 Navy/Ranger .36 cal revolver rather than using a .44 or .45.

[s0nspark]

We like big calibers...and at the time there was this nostalgia thing going on

There sure seems to be a lot of nostalgia/urban myth surrounding the cult of .45.

[Kyle Reese]

There sure seems to be a lot of nostalgia/urban myth surrounding the cult of .45.
It won two world wars and defeated the Commies in the Cold War, right?

[s0nspark]

It won two world wars and defeated the Commies in the Cold War, right?

I also like the "flying ashtray" moniker ... who wants to be shot with that?!?!

[Kyle Reese]

I also like the "flying ashtray" moniker ... who wants to be shot with that?!?!
Rumor has it that Stalin had a case of the vapors when he learned American troops being sent to fight in Korea had 1911's.

[Salamander]

To go in a completely different direction....

Way back in high school and college, I worked as a photojournalist for a few years. As a pro I’d often run 100,000+ frames per year through a camera, in much the same way that some of the folks on this forum burn through a lot more practice ammo than the average hobbyist. Thus I’m able to offer a few metaphors using camera build philosophy and how it functioned under stress.

Back then there were only a few logical choices for the working pro. The Nikon F was most common, and it was a wonder of simplicity. It was also one of the early mass produced pro level cameras. We affectionately called them “hockey pucks” because it was really difficult to break one. My primary Nikon body had almost no finish left after two and a half years, it was mostly exposed brass, but everything still worked.

The Leica M4 was kind of the HK equivalent of the day. Externally minimalist in the sense of a bare minimum of controls, internally complex, lots of swiss-watch level intricate machinery but somehow utterly reliable in spite of that complexity. Expensive. Very good at certain things (street photography, portraiture, candids) but with limitations. For those of us who happened to work in areas it was good at, it was an excellent choice, but somebody shooting, say, sports would have selected something else.

The Hasselblad 500C was similar and was the studio portraiture counterpart. Intricate internally, expensive, reliable in experienced hands and if properly maintained but not something an amateur would want to take apart. Hmmm, sounds a little 1911-ish?

I still have an example of all three, the 1960s-80s examples are fairly reasonably priced now. The Nikon is an obsolete curiosity, there are other newer things that do it’s job a lot better now. The Leica and the Hasselblad are still useful for certain narrowly defined and specialized types of work.

Leica has continued their overall philosophy into the digital age, and the current M bodies are obscenely expensive (more than twice the price of a Wilson CQB) but still externally minimalistic and internally complex, and still good at the same things that their ancestors were in 1969. Interestingly though, there’s really no Glock counterpart in the contemporary camera world. Most manufacturers have gone the route of feature creep and added complexity. They try to do everything for all people, and cost is held down only by cutting corners during design and manufacturing. Most modern DSLR’s have shutters rated for around 100,000 cycles, a years worth by my old standards and less than that now when it’s so easy to shoot more quickly. My most recent DSLR purchase, a Nikon D300, came with a 420 page instruction manual. My working pro friends today break cameras a lot more often than we did in the old days, even top of the line examples.

So while there were a number of parallels to the 1911 if one looks at examples from the first three-quarters of the 20th century, that same story may show Glock's genius, essentially the willingness to strip a product down to the barest minimum, to keep it simple. Very few modern corporations seem to have had the courage and the vision to take that route… Apple under Steve Jobs comes to mind as another that has found success through minimalism (and effective marketing), and that foundation may be getting a little shaky now that he’s gone.

[tomr]

If one is illogically restricted from using modern expanding defensive handgun ammunition, there might be some sense to using .45 Auto, otherwise the benefits of reduced recoil, increased magazine capacity, lighter weight, and enhanced durability of 9 mm handguns tend to make them the best choice at present. Lot's of old West gunslingers did good work with the Colt 1851 Navy/Ranger .36 cal revolver rather than using a .44 or .45.

Course there wasn't a lot of choice in 1851. How well do you suppose those round balls expanded? More seriously, ever done a terminal ballistic analysis of one?

[tomr]

To go in a completely different direction....

Way back in high school and college, I worked as a photojournalist for a few years. As a pro I’d often run 100,000+ frames per year through a camera, in much the same way that some of the folks on this forum burn through a lot more practice ammo than the average hobbyist. Thus I’m able to offer a few metaphors using camera build philosophy and how it functioned under stress.

Back then there were only a few logical choices for the working pro. The Nikon F was most common, and it was a wonder of simplicity. It was also one of the early mass produced pro level cameras. We affectionately called them “hockey pucks” because it was really difficult to break one. My primary Nikon body had almost no finish left after two and a half years, it was mostly exposed brass, but everything still worked.

The Leica M4 was kind of the HK equivalent of the day. Externally minimalist in the sense of a bare minimum of controls, internally complex, lots of swiss-watch level intricate machinery but somehow utterly reliable in spite of that complexity. Expensive. Very good at certain things (street photography, portraiture, candids) but with limitations. For toss of us who happened to work in areas it was good at, it was an excellent choice, but somebody shooting, say, sports would have selected something else.

The Hasselblad 500C was similar and was the studio portraiture counterpart. Intricate internally, expensive, reliable in experienced hands and if properly maintained but not something an amateur would want to take apart. Hmmm, sounds a little 1911-ish?

I still have an example of all three, the 1960s-80s examples are fairly reasonably priced now. The Nikon is an obsolete curiosity, there are other newer things that do it’s job a lot better now. The Leica and the Hasselblad are still useful for certain narrowly defined and specialized types of work.

Leica has continued their overall philosophy into the digital age, and the current M bodies are obscenely expensive but still externally minimalistic and internally complex, and still good at the same things that their ancestors were in 1969. Interestingly though, there’s really no Glock counterpart in the contemporary camera world. Most manufacturers have gone the route of feature creep and added complexity. They try to do everything for all people, and cost is held down only by cutting corners during design and manufacturing. Most modern DSLR’s have shutters rated for around 100,000 cycles, a years worth by my old standards and less than that know when it’s so easy to shoot more quickly. My most recent DSLR purchase, a Nikon D300, came with a 420 page instruction manual.

So while there were a number of parallels to the 1911 if one looks at examples from the first three quarters of the 20th century, that same story may show Glocks genius, essentially the willingness to strip a product down to the barest minimum, to keep it simple. Very few modern corporations seem to have had the courage and the vision to take that route… Apple under Steve Jobs comes to mind as another that has found success through minimalism, and that foundation may be getting a little shaky now that he’s gone.


I don't know cameras, but aren't the modern pocket (don't know what you'd call them) - stuff in the $200 to $300 range sort of Glock-like?

[Salamander]

I don't know cameras, but aren't the modern pocket (don't know what you'd call them) - stuff in the $200 to $300 range sort of Glock-like?

Not really. Most are feature-laden, have thick manuals (or large pdf files on the web site), and very few would hold up to pro level abuse. They're fine for the average consumer, which is what they're designed for. More like an entry-level AR than like a Glock. One of the most common criticisms I hear these days is overcomplexity of menus, and despite many reviews that say so we keep going in the same direction.

There is some innovation happening, but it's not by the old school camera companies, it's by Sony and Panasonic and a few others who began on the electronics end and have a better grasp of the consumer mindset. However the pro market is too small and is dominated by a few companies today, and there's really nothing new coming out of there.

That may be the core problem from our perspective. Whether guns or cameras, there aren't enough people out on the right tail of the curve to capture the full attention of corporate top management. They prefer to go after the easy dollars.

[Dr_Thanatos]

Course there wasn't a lot of choice in 1851. How well do you suppose those round balls expanded? More seriously, ever done a terminal ballistic analysis of one?

Yes.

The round ball flattens slightly on bone, and doesn't penetrate for crap after entering the skull. But it still killed the guy.

Bout like a modern 32acp lrn.





Sent from my GT-P7310 using Tapatalk HD

[Jeep]

If one is illogically restricted from using modern expanding defensive handgun ammunition, there might be some sense to using .45 Auto, otherwise the benefits of reduced recoil, increased magazine capacity, lighter weight, and enhanced durability of 9 mm handguns tend to make them the best choice at present. Lot's of old West gunslingers did good work with the Colt 1851 Navy/Ranger .36 cal revolver rather than using a .44 or .45.

Agreed, Doc, but lots of people have been killed with .380's as well, and as you have overwhelmingly proved, it isn't a caliber that one would recommend. And, unfortunately, we still illogically restrict most of our troops from using modern expanding defensive. What we should do is announce that we are going to try to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in the future by using a more accurate and safer round, and issue hollow points to the troops. I don't think we are going to do it. Nor do I think we will go to EFMJ rounds. Instead, I think the State Department will insist that we stay with our current, inadequate ammunition and to hell with the troops.

If that is correct (and I hope that I'm wrong, but I don't see the DoD even pressing the issue) then I think most .45 and .40 FMJ loads are materially better than our current 9mm FMJ rounds. Should we switch pistols? No--we should switch governments, but that is an entirely different issue.

[jetfire]

If I lived in a state with a magazine capacity ban restriction, Inwould probably carry a .45.

[Salamander]

If I lived in a state with a magazine capacity ban restriction, Inwould probably carry a .45.

I'm in a high-cap ban state, and for a while I felt that way too. But eventually I went back to 9mm.

In 45 acp to get the full 10 rounds allowed I tried carrying a full-size M&P or alternatively a USPc with an elephant foot mag. Either way that made the gun significantly harder to conceal at least for me. The USPc turned out to be the preference with 8+1 in the gun and a 10-round mag as a spare. As much as I love my Series 70 1911, it would rust if I tried to carry it in the rainy/foggy coastal climate. It's strictly a range gun these days.

Ultimately I found that practice tended to happen more often with 9mm, and that I could shoot 9mm faster.

I think there's more than one valid approach depending on one's goals, but for me that's the way it worked out.

[Savage Hands]

If I lived in a state with a magazine capacity ban restriction, Inwould probably carry a .45.


Unless you owned grandfathered mags before the ban... Besides that I prefer the Glock 17 and 19 in size over any 45 sized handguns.

[Suvorov]

I'm pretty much of the mindset here in Kalifornia anymore of recommending the midsized or "compact" 9mms like the USPc, P2000, G19s, and P229s as you only loose 3 rounds (not the G19) but are still left with a highly shootable, concealable, gun that exhibits few if any of the problems associated with the sub compacts.

[LHS]

If I lived in a state with a magazine capacity ban restriction, Inwould probably carry a .45.

When I started carrying, the Klinton AWB was still in effect. I had the choice of 8+1 rounds of .45 in a nice Wilson 1911, or 10+1 of 9mm in a nice Langdon-tuned Beretta. I picked the .45 and was happy. Once ammo prices started to climb and the capacity limit sunset, it seemed silly to give up all the 9mm offered for the marginal benefits of the larger bullet. I've been carrying the pizza pistol ever since.

[jetfire]

I'm probably not yet best example though. I live in a free state and still carry a wheelgun.

[Jeep]

I'm probably not yet best example though. I live in a free state and still carry a wheelgun.

Ah, but what caliber wheelgun?

[WilsonCombatRep]

I think I misquoted. I think it was "about pistol shooting" vs grip angle. And I think it was a more unusual term than "Kraut" but I can't come up with it right now.

Lugerhead?

[Malamute]

Course there wasn't a lot of choice in 1851. How well do you suppose those round balls expanded? More seriously, ever done a terminal ballistic analysis of one?


Yes.

The round ball flattens slightly on bone, and doesn't penetrate for crap after entering the skull. But it still killed the guy.

Bout like a modern 32acp lrn.


Keith wrote that the old guys he knew (Civil War vets and others) thought the Navy Colt with round ball full charge loads was a better killer than the 38 spl RN lead bullet loads in use in the early 1900's.

[BLR]

Fun random thought: a 0.5" diameter mushroomed bullet will do, almost exactly, half the damage a 0.75" bullet will. This assumes crushed tissue is the only metric of interest, and a flat surface. Neither of those are strictly valid assumptions, but they are a good place to start an argument.

[will_1400]

I'm pretty much of the mindset here in Kalifornia anymore of recommending the midsized or "compact" 9mms like the USPc, P2000, G19s, and P229s as you only loose 3 rounds (not the G19) but are still left with a highly shootable, concealable, gun that exhibits few if any of the problems associated with the sub compacts.

When I was in Cali a couple years ago, I was taking a hard look at the P239 in 9mm. Considering the horror stories I've heard about the neutered mags not functioning properly, I figured I'd eat the two round penalty to get a gun/magazine designed for ten rounds or less, I shoot SIGs pretty well, and the price difference for feeding a 9mm vs a .45 sealed it for me. Now that I've left Cali, I'm using an M&P 9 FS that works well enough for me (translated, I'm not at the point to tell if the groups I shoot are me or the gun and I don't shoot nearly as much as I should).

Of course considering the last big ammo drought, I'm probably going to pick up an M&P 40 since I could find .40 everywhere but 9mm and .45 were unobtanium.

[klewis]

When I was in Cali a couple years ago, I was taking a hard look at the P239 in 9mm. Considering the horror stories I've heard about the neutered mags not functioning properly, I figured I'd eat the two round penalty to get a gun/magazine designed for ten rounds or less, I shoot SIGs pretty well, and the price difference for feeding a 9mm vs a .45 sealed it for me. Now that I've left Cali, I'm using an M&P 9 FS that works well enough for me (translated, I'm not at the point to tell if the groups I shoot are me or the gun and I don't shoot nearly as much as I should).

Of course considering the last big ammo drought, I'm probably going to pick up an M&P 40 since I could find .40 everywhere but 9mm and .45 were unobtanium.

Funny, all of the above are my reasons for wanting to pick up a 1911 in 38Super as I head toward Kali. Hopefully, my stay will be short term.

[Tamara]

Fun random thought: a 0.5" diameter mushroomed bullet will do, almost exactly, half the damage a 0.75" bullet will. This assumes crushed tissue is the only metric of interest...

Not at all interested in that as a metric. You could try arguing that .45ACP, assuming good JHPs (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo) in both, allows me to be a worse shot by .12". ;)

[BLR]

Not at all interested in that as a metric. You could try arguing that .45ACP, assuming good JHPs (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo) in both, allows me to be a worse shot by .12". ;)
You're no fun at all.

[jetfire]

Ah, but what caliber wheelgun?

About tree-fiddy-seven

[45dotACP]

Not at all interested in that as a metric. You could try arguing that .45ACP, assuming good JHPs (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo) in both, allows me to be a worse shot by .12". ;)
I like to think that if I missed the left ventricle by .10 inches with a 9mm, a .45 would be an outstanding choice ;)

[Tamara]

I like to think that if I missed the left ventricle by .10 inches with a 9mm, a .45 would be an outstanding choice ;)

Indeed. You should absolutely carry one. :)

[JodyH]

I like to think that if I missed the left ventricle by .10 inches with a 9mm, a .45 would be an outstanding choice ;)
Ummm... you do know that the .45 would still miss it by .05" don't you?
:p

[45dotACP]

Ummm... you do know that the .45 would still miss it by .05" don't you?
:p
.50 GI here I come! :cool:

[MDS]

I like to think that if I missed the left ventricle by .10 inches with a 9mm, a .45 would be an outstanding choice ;)
Is there anything non-fatal within .1" of the left ventricle, though? ;)

Caliber is like gun choice, near as I can tell. Unless I pick, like, a Jennings in 32, worrying about a better choice isn't worth the distraction from my trigger press...

Now, if we're talking about fun, let's do it. I, for one, enjoy shooting 22 more than anything. In everything from revolver to buzz guns, from semiauto pistols to suppressed ar's. Q: how many mm better do I have to be with a 22 compared to a 45? A: sorry, didn't hear the question over the sound of how nice it is that 22-rated steel is light enough to hump comfortably into the woods! :D

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Yeah, but the .45 would blow out the aorta anyway with hydrostatic shock. Alternatively, you could load a shotgun with rock salt, and achieve the same result but from hygroscopic shock. It's all in how hy you want to get with your terminal ballistics planning.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

.50 GI here I come! :cool:
still .025" away

[45dotACP]

still .025" away
Cursed maths. I feel like I must ragequit now.

[Failure2Stop]

Yeah, but the .45 would blow out the aorta anyway with hydrostatic shock. Alternatively, you could load a shotgun with rock salt, and achieve the same result but from hygroscopic shock. It's all in how hy you want to get with your terminal ballistics planning.
Can't tell if sarcasm.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Pretty sure I would be the first person in history to advocate water absorption as a means of incapacitation, but on the other hand, dehydration can be a serious problem, so I guess you never know.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

[Jeep]

About tree-fiddy-seven

Now that is old school. Not, perhaps, as old school as a .44 special, but still old school.

[TR675]

Alternatively, you could load a shotgun with rock salt, and achieve the same result but from hygroscopic shock. It's all in how hy you want to get with your terminal ballistics planning.

^^^ Like.

Mods, we need a "like" button.

[Hambo]

Is there anything non-fatal within .1" of the left ventricle, though? ;)


Yes, including through the left ventricle. Of course if it's you or me we'll be dead as a hammer, but there are a few survivors. Usually they already have a serious addiction problem and multiple felony convictions.

[RevolverRob]

I'm probably not yet best example though. I live in a free state and still carry a wheelgun.

As near as I can tell most revolver shooters are bad examples. Most tend to live in free states and still choose to be Anachronistic Cowboys™.

But now in Mordor, I keep thinking to myself maybe I should trade the three-fiddy-seven for a G19, which meets the 15-round restrictions of this place. But then I think, "Nah, I could just get an 8-round three-fiddy-seven..." Or maybe a 6-round .44?

I'm bad at the capacity game. I'd pick a 1911 before Glock too...

-Rob

[threedogdad]

I think it may have less to do with being an anachronistic cowboy and more to do with the increased presence of large four-legged critters in many free states. 357 is a lot more effective than 911 in a lot of the areas where I spend my time.

[TR675]

I'm bad at the capacity game. I'd pick a 1911 before Glock too...

You're not bad at the capacity game, you're good at the having style game.

[RevolverRob]

You're not bad at the capacity game, you're good at the having style game.

They can write that on my tombstone, "Rob had style, but died when he ran out of ammo when attacked by a street gang."

[MDS]

"You may find my corpse in a gutter one day, but by God it will be in a very small, very elegant pile of brass."

[Jeep]

They can write that on my tombstone, "Rob had style, but died when he ran out of ammo when attacked by a street gang."

Oh, I don't know. Most street gangs don't have the esprit d'corps of the Waffen SS. One shot and they generally run. So I think what the newspapers might say is "Street gang attack thwarted by man with extremely stylish handgun" or "One powerful--but elegantly stylish--shot causes street gang to flee."

[threedogdad]

Can't deny the importance of having style. Even wizards appreciate 1911s.

http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u396/threedogdad/Mobile%20Uploads/tumblr_mry0h8EIYQ1rl07lyo1_500_zpsfc2831ae.jpg (http://s1065.photobucket.com/user/threedogdad/media/Mobile%20Uploads/tumblr_mry0h8EIYQ1rl07lyo1_500_zpsfc2831ae.jpg.htm l)

[JonInWA]

Lube - I can make a 1911 just as tolerant to lack of lube as a Glock. It isn't difficult to do. 75% of doing so is in the finish, the other 25% is in reducing bearing surface area, which significantly reduces service life. Design considerations, and all.
Recoil spring - Why should I have to change my flat wire recoil spring more often in a CQB than a Glock?
Set up time - Again, do you think USGI 1911A1s got gunsmith time? Or are you talking about pressing a match gun into service? If that's the case, let's compare apples to apples.
Corrosion - Again, why is that? You don't have to buy a blued 1911. You can buy a stainless one. Or you can sent it to Robar to have a great finish put on it.
Armorers - Again, why? I have a pile of 1911s that I am drawing my conclusion on, not all mine. This is, like extractors, a grossly over blown idea used to generate blog traffic.
Mags - I've not had a bad ETM or Cobra yet. Or USGI 7 rounder. I've seen bad slide stops that mucked up the works, but rarely do you get a bad mag from Tripp or Wilson.

With all due deference to the experts, extractors don't "lose tension" in manner thought. They don't flex enough to. They don't wear out in 7500 rounds. They don't need depot level maintenance every 10k. And how many cops put 10k through a gun anyway? 5%? 10%?

I think some quantification of the numbers is in order.

For those who have an interest: http://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/1849892/06181G_Sample.pdf/d408b01c-8497-46a3-9845-3af305feba89

Fatigue limits of steel are pretty high.

Well, I take a couple of days off, and this thread's expanded seemingly geometrically...If it hasn't been overcome by successive events/threads let me try to address the points you've raised, Bill.

1. Lube. I have absolutely not doubt that you, given your expertise, shop, and resources can do exactly what you're stipulating. That begs the real question, though, which is "What would it cost realistically to have such work done to a 1911, and how would such a product-improved 1911 then compare cost-wise (and availability-wise, as I suspect such product improvements would require significant time/resources to accomplish)?" And, at the end of the day, what's the real point-such work still doesn't deal with the weight and capacity disadvantages inherent to a 1911-and we're looking at a platform that already costs at least $800+ retail for a decent one (i.e., Colt) prior to such ministrations.

2. Recoil spring. You're absolutely right. Now look at the comparative costs of a Wilson/Nighthawk flatwire recoil spring assembly versus a Glock RSA...I've considered switching to the flatwire RSA on my NHC 4.5" Talon II, but it just doesn't price out-it's far less expensive to simply stock additional regular recoil springs (and that's factoring in that the Wilson/HNC flatwires are actually spec'ced to last significantly longer/have longer recommended preventive maintenance replacement intervals than Glock RSAs).

3. Set-up time. I think that USGI 1911s were subjected to a far more rigorous standard of component tolerencing, inspection, and QC than those today; manufacturers in the 1911-1945 period had a greater pool of highly skilled labor, so that greater efforts were expended on assembly requiring less efforts at the unit-of-issue level. As WilsonCombatRep points out in this thread, such is no longer the case today, at least until ou get into the more rarefied atmosphere of semi-custom/custom 1911s-with prices proportionalized to match said efforts required. Again, compare with an out-of-the box Glock...

4. I'm a bit surprised you of all people are discounting the corrosion issue. First, even a stainless steel gun will inevitably be susceptible to corrosion unless treated and maintained. Second, corrosion is an insidious (and potentially pervasive) issue with the internal components-components subject to water and condensation when exposed to the elements by users. And that can happen pretty frequently in military/LEO environments.

5. Armorers. Bill, I guess that the most I can say is that your're assessing your own superlative skill set and experiences and extrapolating them to unit armorer levels-and assuming that said armorers have the requisite time and resources available as necessitated. Specifically, revisit why Tacoma PD, which had been concurrently running both Glocks and Kimber 1911s decided to de-issue the 1911s and go strictly Glock. My understanding is that it was primarily a combination of excess times required on maintaining and repairing the 1911s compared to the Glocks-which became glaringly obvious over time when they were concurrently running the two platforms-and that's BEFORE factoring in the platform and component cost differentials between the two platforms....

6. Magazines. If all 1911s adhered to the same architecture (i.e., as stipulated by Colt), you'd be right. Quite simply, they don't (and that applies to components as well as the guns themselves). That can create inherent magazine issues. And while Wilson puts out a decent product (and warranty), the word I have from experienced Wilson users (and we're talking the older 47 mags primarily; the new ETM and/or flatwire ones haven't been out long enough for me to have garnered much of a feel yet) is that over time the springs and tubes wear out.

7. Extractors. I tend to agree with you on this one-but then why do very experienced users (like Hilton Yam) continue to insist that is is a pervasive issue, with appropriate forecasted replacement intervals?

I did read, (or rather attempted to read) the metallurgical analysis of steel article link you provided. Since I'm neither an engineer, statistician, or mathematician, it frankly was pretty untranslatable to this layman's mind. I'll take your word for it. Geez, Bill, what do you give out for party favors-Engineering Rosetta Stones??

Best, Jon

[tomr]

Ah! back on track - thank you Jon


Well, I take a couple of days off, and this thread's expanded seemingly geometrically...If it hasn't been overcome by successive events/threads let me try to address the points you've raised, Bill.

1. Lube. I have absolutely not doubt that you, given your expertise, shop, and resources can do exactly what you're stipulating. That begs the real question, though, which is "What would it cost realistically to have such work done to a 1911, and how would such a product-improved 1911 then compare cost-wise (and availability-wise, as I suspect such product improvements would require significant time/resources to accomplish)?"

I believe Bill's point was this is a matter of design and execution, if one wants "lube free" in a 1911 you can finish and tolerance it that way, by design. Additional cost would not come from new tolerancing spec. Finish would be applied in an industrial setting not one at a time, custom shop, so costs probably not so significant


2a. And, at the end of the day, what's the real point-such work still doesn't deal with the weight and capacity disadvantages inherent to a 1911-and we're looking at a platform that already costs at least $800+ retail for a decent one (i.e., Colt) prior to such ministrations. No argument, from me.

2. Recoil spring. You're absolutely right. Now look at the comparative costs of a Wilson/Nighthawk flatwire recoil spring assembly versus a Glock RSA...I've considered switching to the flatwire RSA on my NHC 4.5" Talon II, but it just doesn't price out-it's far less expensive to simply stock additional regular recoil springs (and that's factoring in that the Wilson/HNC flatwires are actually spec'ced to last significantly longer/have longer recommended preventive maintenance replacement intervals than Glock RSAs). Wilson Combat flatwire spring $10.95. http://shopwilsoncombat.com/Flat-Wire-Recoil-Spring-Full-Size-17/productinfo/614G17/ Wilson Combat round wire spring $8.95 http://shopwilsoncombat.com/Recoil-Springs/products/89/ Flatwires a deal and a half and brings 1911 spring life up to Glock standards

3. Set-up time. I think that USGI 1911s were subjected to a far more rigorous standard of component tolerencing, inspection, and QC than those today; manufacturers in the 1911-1945 period had a greater pool of highly skilled labor, so that greater efforts were expended on assembly requiring less efforts at the unit-of-issue level. As WilsonCombatRep points out in this thread, such is no longer the case today, at least until ou get into the more rarefied atmosphere of semi-custom/custom 1911s-with prices proportionalized to match said efforts required. Again, compare with an out-of-the box Glock...

There's probably a book to be written on this subject. Parts designed as drop in from any manufacturer can be done - it was and came at the expense of some modern day desirable (required) performance standards. Much of the skilled labor went to war and less skilled new employees were able to turn out stuff for WWI & II in unprecedented numbers - remember Rosie the Riveter. Modern process technologies, from design, through fabrication and inspection do stuff with a lot less labor than in the good ol days. We don't make them like we used to infers a quality difference, but really it speaks to a how difference and the new how is better. When was the last time you drove a car from say the 1960's? My Outback with 100k miles would blow the doors off almost any '60s vintage common sports car. Even if we suspect thats hyperbole, cost of operation, comfort, fun to drive, handling modern stuff is better. Colt stubbornly sticks to a design/.fit/finish criterion that it believes is sacrosanct and what Colt buyers want for its 1911s - that explains why they are where they are. The several higher end 1911s of today are pretty sweet rigs. No, we don't make them like we used to. We make them better - if we choose to.

4. I'm a bit surprised you of all people are discounting the corrosion issue. First, even a stainless steel gun will inevitably be susceptible to corrosion unless treated and maintained. Depends on the particular SS alloy chosen. Second, corrosion is an insidious (and potentially pervasive) issue with the internal components-components subject to water and condensation when exposed to the elements by users. And that can happen pretty frequently in military/LEO environments. My non SS 1911A1 did not rust after a year in the RVN to include sleeping under the stars during the monsoon season.

5. Armorers. Bill, I guess that the most I can say is that your're assessing your own superlative skill set and experiences and extrapolating them to unit armorer levels-and assuming that said armorers have the requisite time and resources available as necessitated. Specifically, revisit why Tacoma PD, which had been concurrently running both Glocks and Kimber 1911s decided to de-issue the 1911s and go strictly Glock. My understanding is that it was primarily a combination of excess times required on maintaining and repairing the 1911s compared to the Glocks-which became glaringly obvious over time when they were concurrently running the two platforms-and that's BEFORE factoring in the platform and component cost differentials between the two platforms....

Isn't this really 2a?

6. Magazines. If all 1911s adhered to the same architecture (i.e., as stipulated by Colt), Colts the stipulator if you're building a Colt 1911, mebbe not if its a more modern evolved form of the design. you'd be right. Quite simply, they don't (and that applies to components as well as the guns themselves). That can create inherent magazine issues. And while Wilson puts out a decent product (and warranty), the word I have from experienced Wilson users (and we're talking the older 47 mags primarily; the new ETM and/or flatwire ones haven't been out long enough for me to have garnered much of a feel yet) is that over time the springs and tubes wear out. They all do don't they? Hilton Yam, whom you quote below states that magazines are disposable. Wonder what a 47D would do with a new, correctly sized (ETM-style) flatwire spring. How many of those wore out cause they were being stuffed with 8 rounds and were stacking with a fully compressed round wire spring? If a flatwire spring provided more internal space, for 8 rounds and stopped stressing the feed lips, how long would they last?

7. Extractors. I tend to agree with you on this one-but then why do very experienced users (like Hilton Yam) continue to insist that is is a pervasive issue, with appropriate forecasted replacement intervals?

Mebbe he needs to talk to Bill?

I did read, (or rather attempted to read) the metallurgical analysis of steel article link you provided. Since I'm neither an engineer, statistician, or mathematician, it frankly was pretty untranslatable to this layman's mind. I'll take your word for it. Geez, Bill, what do you give out for party favors-Engineering Rosetta Stones??

Best, Jon

[RevolverRob]

"You may find my corpse in a gutter one day, but by God it will be in a very small, very elegant pile of brass."

When I read this outloud to my wife, after she asked why I was laughing so hard, she couldn't stop laughing for ten minutes. You win.


Oh, I don't know. Most street gangs don't have the esprit d'corps of the Waffen SS. One shot and they generally run. So I think what the newspapers might say is "Street gang attack thwarted by man with extremely stylish handgun" or "One powerful--but elegantly stylish--shot causes street gang to flee."

True enough. Maybe I should just buy a Coonan and call it a day....Stylish and powerful.

-Rob

[jetfire]

"You may find my corpse in a gutter one day, but by God it will be in a very small, very elegant pile of brass."

I am putting that on the blog. It's glorious.

[Drang]

357 is a lot more effective than 911 in a lot of the areas where I spend my time.
I don't know whether to say "I see what you did there" or "That's usually the case" or fix the typo...

[45dotACP]

I just saw an interesting thread on 1911forum about extractors. May have something to do with why the 1911 extractor can be seen as being slightly weaker.

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=467193

The gist of it is, an extractor tip may sometimes push against the bevel of the cartridge case. Not enough to effect reliability (although sometimes it is) but enough so that the force of recoil can, over time, put an excess of pressure on the extractor. Whether or not it would cause the extractor to lose tension quickly I can't say, but some guys say it's a contributing factor to hook breakage, and perhaps the reason why some of the nicer custom guns with hand shaped (dare I say, "tuned") extractors can last longer.

[farscott]

Dr. Riehl's comments on swapping extractors between his Wilson CQB-E pistols got me thinking as I expected that would work, but I wonder what would happen if he swapped extractors between his TRP and the CQB-E pistols. Or with his Colt Custom guns. I suspect there might be some extraction issues as Wilson, Colt, and SA do not follow the same set of specifications. No one today, as has been established, fully follows the 1911A1 specs, either changing dimensions, materials, or both. Each company has their own specs or gets the specs from their part suppliers of choice. So buying a 1911-pattern pistols means buying into the build/design philosophy of the individual manufacturer. Or tinkering.

After some fiddling with a few of my .45 ACP 1911 variants and considering my skill plateau with the P30, I wanted to see what it would take to have a decent 1911-pattern pistol with a magazine capacity at least close to the P30. This was reinforced after shooting some drills and finding out that I still shoot the 1911 faster and with more accuracy -- until reloading -- than the P30. Based on messing with way too many 9x19 1911-pattern pistols, the gun would have to be chambered in .45 ACP. I currently own and shoot 9x19 in pistols from Colt, SA, John Harrison, and David Sams, and the Venn diagram for magazine compatibility is annoyingly complex. Getting rid of the Kimber and STI guns I own but no longer shoot from the diagram did not result in an appreciable simplification of the diagram. Not to mention how low the magazine round count is before something has to be tweaked or tossed. Whereas every other pistol diagram is simple as one magazine rules for each platform. No need to figure out which magazines to use in the P30 or the Glock 19. Buy factory magazines and use them. Not true with the 1911, 9x19 or .45. Though my brute force solution has been Metalform tubes with Tripp Super 7 follower kits for the .45 ACP. The 9x19 magazines have no similar brute force, one size fits all, answer.

So I decided to see what my choices were in a high-capacity/double-stack 1911. The basic choices are 1) Caspian, 2) Para, 3) STI), and 4) SVI. I have an SVI in .40 I use in Limited 10, so I am familiar with that platform. I could not justify the sunk cost (both FRN and time) for another SVI, that SVI is not really suitable for carry without some changes, and I really wanted a gun for which there is one factory magazine (plus I wanted a new gun). That also eliminated the STI guns. The Caspian frames are hard to find and would require a full build as they are sold as components although I did run across a SA high-cap built on a Caspian frame.. That left Para. Doing some digging, I came across the old Para wide bodies. My first thought was absolute disdain as Para USA has truly earned their reputation. But my wife found a John Harrison gun listed for sale on Facebook which prompted her to ask me why it would be advertised as "All that's left from the original pistol is grips, frame and magazine. Everything else is top-shelf stuff." That question was the impetus/seed for an experiment, plus the answer got a laugh.

Literally someone bought a Para P13.45 with a steel frame and kept only the frame, magazines, grip screws, and the grips. That tells you how good the rest of the Para parts are. John built a pistol from what was left, using decent parts and his considerable skill. John has built me more than a few 1911s, and reliability has been my experience with them. So I pondered on the gun for some time as the cost in both FRN and time was reasonable, especially compared to a new full-house Harrison build, and it would allow me to experiment. After my fun budget got an unexpected influx of funds, and I did my due diligence on Para issues, I decided to bite the bullet and buy the gun with eight factory magazines, all filled with Wolff XP magazine springs as Para magazine springs (like many of their parts) are not that good. It is about the size of the P30 with a slightly longer slide and fatter grip frame. The latter is a bit of a concern for me due to my short fingers. Handling a P14 showed that there should be no issue, but the proof is in the shooting. Of course, fully loaded the Para is much heavier than the P30 due to the steel frame and the heavier .45 ACP round. I may move to 185-grain rounds from my usual 230-grain rounds for this gun to slightly reduce the weight.

That gun is on its way to me and will be my focus this winter. I want to see if I can combine the speed and accuracy of my 1911 shooting with my reload times with the P30. I also want to see if the Para magazines will last longer than my 9x19 magazines do before they require a rebuild. Based on my SVI gun, they should, but Para is no SVI. I also want to see if the extractor from a full-house Harrison build on a Caspian frame and slide will properly extract in the P13. I suspect it will not even though the slides are from the same company and the same man built the guns -- albeit on totally different frames. That interchangeability is probably today only practical with the newer Wilson guns.

Time -- and the shooting -- will tell.