1911's, I dont get it.

[saints75]

I was watching a Youtube vid were some on paid $3000 for a 1911. A few weeks ago I was talking to someone who paid about $2000 for a four inch barrel 1911. I know there are people will pay that much for one. I know a lot of cops that have paid up to $2000 for one that they could use on duty. I have shot 1911s and they are nice. My father would tell me there is one gun and that is a 1911. I shoot Glocks and I think they are nice too. If I was going to buy a 45ACP I would want 10 to 14 rounds of 45, not 8 and something that did not require a Gun Smith to work on. I don't know, I cannot see me spending $2000 on a 45 when I can spend $700 on a G21 with night sights. Is it the work that makes them so expensive? What is the different between a Springfield Operator and a Wilson Combat 1911 or an Ed Brown 1911 or a S&W E Sires 1911? Is it the parts, the way it is put together, reputation? I just cannot see myself paying up $2000 for a handgun, a rifle, yes. I am not trying to start any debate on makers or way a 1911 is better them a Glock, just want to know why so much.

[F-Trooper05]

I don't own any 1911's, but I do "get it." A nice 1911 is friggin' sweet, bro. If I were wealthy, I would take the LAV 1911 armorers course and become a 1911 slut (I'd also buy a few nice watches so I could look more like Todd). But alas, I'm not wealthy and will therefore stick to plastic guns until I win the lottery.

[secondstoryguy]

I've had a long love affair with the 1911 starting when I got my first one at age 15. Since then I've owned numerous 1911s, built a few from scratch myself and have carried $2500+ guns on duty. A well built 1911 is a pleasure to shoot. The weight, sight radius, small grip circumference, and especially the trigger can make an average shooter look great. Then there is the mythology/history attached to 1911s that draw many to it. If you got the cash and time to wait for one, go for it.

I've since switched to Glocks/HKs. I switched for the same reason I use Apple computers. Apple computers, like Glocks and HKs, have a good proven recipe of what works well and you don't have to modify them to get them to work(most of the time!). I know if I use Glock/HK mags and don't change anything major with the gun it will generally run well. If I have a parts breakage I can install a factory part with no fitting required. They also hold more BBs.

I still miss my 1911s sometimes, but the for the same reason I wear a Gshock instead of a Rolex/Omega, the plastic guns are more practical tools.

[John Ralston]

I think it can be summed up like this - "If you don't get it, nothing I say is going to enlighten you".

Not a slam, but really, if you can't grasp it now, you probably don't really care. I have a custom 1911, and I think it was worth the money. I still carry my HK P30, but I can truely appreciate the craftsmanship required to build my 1911. High end production guns don't really do anything for me, but I would take a Wilson Combat over a Springfield for better parts and fitting.

My next big purchase will be a New 70 Series Colt and a whole lot of my Gunsmith's time...

[jetfire]

/me casts "Summon Tam"

[JodyH]

I feel nothing when I look at 1911's.
Walther P88's and Browning High Powers on the other hand...

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[farscott]

A 1911 that is customized to your needs, wants, and whims is something that is worth the money -- or a big waste of money. It depends on the person and the situation. I own more than a few custom pistols from John Harrison and David Sams, and I carry a few of them in rural Alabama when I am not carrying a Glock. In an urban environment, I gravitate to the Glock. Eight rounds in rural Alabama before a reload is much more palatable to me than it is in a large city.

There is something atavistic about a bespoke 1911 as it recalls an era where weapons were purely individual products as opposed to mass-produced commodities. Funny for a weapon that was built as a mass-produced product for its original customer, the War Department. Yet, it is true as the options for a custom 1911 are limited by only your budget, your smith's skills, and your tastes. If you want the slide top flattened, it can be. If you want it round, it can be. Serrated as well in both round and flat configurations. Serrated with patterns as well. And slide top treatment is just one set of decisions. Grip treatments alone seem to be multiplying each year. Many of the choices are aesthetic as opposed to functional, but the best are both. Of course, beauty and function in a 1911 are in the eye of the beholder.

There is also the feel of and pride in ownership of a well-regulated machine as a well-built 1911 feels amazing in the hand. I have also found found nothing that is easier to shoot with amazing accuracy nor anything easier to conceal. The design is 100 years old, and it originated in an era where skilled labor was not so expensive and machinery was very expensive. Today, we live in the converse as automation is much less expensive than skilled labor.

Is the Glock or the HK P30 a better self-defense or LE tool? Yes, I believe, as either is simpler to use than the 1911 and much easier to maintain. Is the 1911 suitable for self-defense or LE usage? I think so for the person willing to put in more time mastering the gun and maintaining it.

[YVK]

I just cannot see myself paying up $2000 for a handgun

1. You can substitute what I highlighted in bold by <several grand for golf clubs>, <several grand for a watch>, <50 thousand for a car>, <thousand bucks for a pair of skis>, <500 bucks for a pair of shoes>, <200 bucks for a tennis racket> and have exactly the same discussion. None of those things are necessity, all of them have a much cheaper and equally effective substitutes. Values are assigned by sellers and agreed on by buyers, often times without any rational explanation.

2. In case of 1911s, the limitations of design/manufacturing process dictate that it has to be set up with extra attention and quality control to be deemed duty-ready. It appears that $2500 is about the price one has to pay now to get a reliable, mechanically sound, ergonomically enhanced 1911 with quality parts. Too bad it costs that much, but it costs what it costs. Some people believe that it offers what no other gun can offer and chose to pay for it; others believe that it offers nothing that's worth that much and laugh at it. An opinion of a latter group doesn't invalidate opinion of a former.

[NETim]

I'm a funny animal. I used to shoot lots of registered trap with a Remmy 1100. It was there I got used to running a high maintenance firearm. I was adamant that I would NOT drop the coin for a more expensive shotgun as I was convinced (still am for that matter) that a high dollar trap gun wouldn't break any more targets for me. All it has to do is go "BANG!" every time and put the pattern in the same place each time and I could do the rest.

Now, after my "awakening" and the realization that I, and no one else, is responsible for my life and that of my family's, I find myself buying 1911's that cost waaaayyy more than my ol' 1100. Me, Mr. Practical. In my case, I wanted a gun that I knew would run right out of the box w/o multiple trips to some gunsmith, so that's how I justified a higher end gun.

1911's feel good in my hands and they work for me. I like their look. I don't mind a little higher maintenance. I used to it and to me anyway, it's a labor of love. I don't buy 'em to make a fashion statement or to draw attention to yours truly. My 1911's are pretty dressed down and one has to look close to divine who built 'em. (In fact, I think they make work against me in some respects. Once someone finds out what they are, they have to think to themselves "But you don't shoot worth a damn!" :) )

I'm a funny animal.

[VolGrad]

I think it can be summed up like this - "If you don't get it, nothing I say is going to enlighten you".
This.

Same reason folks like muscle cars vs a Honda ....
Rolex vs a Casio ....
Eat steak vs a hamburger ...
Date supermodels vs a homely woman that can cook ...

They all get the job done but there is a sense of pride associated with a quality "item". I have owned some really nice 1911s. I still own one. However, I too carry a GLOCK. The plastic gun is in many ways a more practical tool ..... but I still love the 1911.

[DocGKR]

The 1911 is an iconic pistol that is easy to carry, has a long service life and is quite reliable when built correctly, works well as an impact weapon in close quarters, and is easy to shoot because of the superb trigger. A properly customized 5" steel-frame single-stack 1911 in .45 ACP is a superb, unparalleled choice for the dedicated user willing to spend a significant amount of money to get it properly initially set-up and considerable time to maintain it. As noted by many folks, it was designed at a time when labor was cheap; thus requiring a lot of hand fitting of quality manufactured parts, otherwise it has function and durability issues. It also needs to remain as close as possible to the original design (single stack 5" .45 ACP) in order to maximize reliability; changes from these parameters result in more issues. In this day and age, time is money and quality parts are expensive--added together this leaves a well built 1911 typically in excess of $2500. I carried, qualified on, or was issued a 1911 from 1986-2011; the pistol served me well just like my forefathers at Belleau Wood, Guadalcanal, Monte Cassino, Normandy, Bastogne, Chosin, and Ia Drang. However, to get a quality 1911, I needed to be willing to spend several thousand dollars and have the patience to wait many months to get a well built pistol, like these ones here:

http://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=527&stc=1&d=1327791007

Time has marched on; there are better tools available and I no longer rely on a 1911 for daily use.

[Odin Bravo One]

I don't "Get it" either...........

But that's just me.

And I don't own one single bone stock 1911.

I don't question it. It just is.

[SHOOTER13]

I own a few 1911a1's and a few Glocks...and all function well without the benefit of a gunsmiths touch.

Which would I choose if I could have only one...hard to say.

But I will say this...the Glock is what I carry everyday, due to it's caliber, it's lightweight, and it's capacity.

On the range... or in competition...where I have plenty of time to pick and choose which one to shoot...I'll pick a 1911.

...on the street, well, I made my choice!

[HeadHunter]

Me either. After I shot my father's G17, I bought a G19, sold my 1911s, and never looked back. That was over 20 years ago. I've bought a few 1911s since then but sold them after a short time. I still have the old man's G17 though.

[JDM]

I'm enamored with the idea of a 1911. In practice however....

[saints75]

I think it can be summed up like this - "If you don't get it, nothing I say is going to enlighten you".

I think John is right lol I get. If you buy a costum guy it is going to cost you. They are cool looking guns and fun to shoot. Not sure if I would own one. Maybe if I have the money to buy one I will. Thanks for the insight everyone.

[WDW]

A reliable 1911 is more or less a handmade gun. It requires hand fitting, tuning, and explicit attention to detail. The 1911 has excellent ergos due to its grip angle and single stack mag resulting in a thinner grip. It lends itself greatly to concealability. The beavertail grip safety results in a high grip putting the bore more or less in-line with your forearm resulting in extreme controllability while firing. For all its benefits, it still only holds 8 rds and for many that is plenty. The benefits outweigh the few detriments. My reason from staying away from 1911s is cost. It more or less boils down to unless you wanna spend around $2,000 initially and then shell out more money for premium fitted parts every 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000rds or whenever maintenance dictates, you should stay away. At the same time, if you decide you like all the benefits of the 1911, but want to buy a cheapo Taurus, Remington, or Para, you can expect alot of frustration and immediate/remedial action drill time.

Trust me I know. I dipped my toes in the 1911 pool a while back and got burned. I did better than most initially. I bought a Kimber Custom II TLE, a pruportedly high end 1911. That POS had double feeds and FTE's at least once every 3 or 4 mags, and those were 7rd wilson mags. It also had lock up issues. The gun was always clean and lubed. It lacked the attention to detail and craftsmanship needed to make it reliable and it is 100% my fault for thinking I could cheat the system.

1911s are not complicated guns. They have relatively few parts and can be extremely reliable. But, they hail from an era when things were made by hand and they still require that attention to detail. They use a different lock up method than modern guns like Glock and Sig. They have to be hand fitted and properly timed. Most factory guns are not, hence the bad rep.

[Tamara]

Only stupid people who know dick about guns would buy a 1911 in the first place, let alone pay $2000+ for one. :|


/me casts "Summon Tam"

There's no point, bro. The OP has all the answers already. If I wanted to have this discussion, I'd be having it over at GlockTalk.

[Bob Hostetter]

Before I retired from law enforcement I was required to carry a Glock and did so without complaint. It is very functional, pretty reliable, and did it's job day in and day out. It was also uninteresting, uninspired, and plain if not ugly. I still have it (1st generation Glock 17), but I never shoot it anymore.

I own several high end 1911's and 2011's, have built dozens of them, used them in competition for over 20 years, and have carried nothing else since I retired. They are all 100% reliable or as close to it as something mechnical can be (average failure rate of maybe 1 malfunction every 8-10,000 rounds). The last time my carry gun malfunctioned it was caused by a broken extractor that was about 8 years old (and probably used when I installed it) and had about 20,000 round thru it.

If you spend your money wisely you don't have to spend a ton of money to get a good one, you just have to know which one's to buy and which one's to skip.

[s0nspark]

I feel nothing when I look at 1911's.
8< snip >8
Browning High Powers on the other hand...


Ah, yes, this. If I had to have an all metal pistol it would be a BHP with a big helping of Tussey's TLC.

[SLG]

Too many people worry too much about what gun they currently carry/should carry/might carry. I own several high end 1911's, as well as a couple of $500 Kimbers. All of them work very well.

I also carry a 1911 every single day. I use it for concealed carry, as well as tactical stuff. I used to do the same with Sigs, and with Glocks before and after. None of them were perfect, all of them worked just fine. Anyone who tells you that a high end 1911 is a necessity for LE/Mil work, even at an elite level, is really just saying that they don't know how to shoot very well (at least, nothing besides a 1911), and they don't really understand the role of the handgun.

As a civilian, if you don't get it, just be glad. You might spend too much time on this and then you'll get it - and be several thousand dollars poorer. Either way, we all like different women, cars, watches. This is no different.

[Jac]

I get it... I just can't afford it.

[LittleLebowski]

The OP has all the answers already. If I wanted to have this discussion, I'd be having it over at GlockTalk.

That sums it up perfectly. We don't need this type of discussion here, gents. Let's make a guided decision not to sink into a good old fashioned flame war over 1911s.

[derekb]

I want a 1911, or a BHP. I wouldn't carry either, probably (I've already got an expensive, much more esoteric love for that purpose) but personally I've got a major thing for the nostalgic, those machines, habits, and hobbies that could be declared by some majority (or a vocal minority) as anachronistic.

I want to buy a 1911 or BHP because I like the -idea- of a 1911 or BHP. I'd love to be able to spend $3000 on a finely tuned, lovingly crafted machine, but that's not likely at any foreseeable point in my future. Therefore, someday I will spend a few hundred dollars on something that's barely seen the touch of man, and I'll enjoy the hell out of it because the design's older than I'll ever be, and that's neat.

[JConn]

I did just that. Bought a Springfield mil spec. More reliable than a lot of gen 4 Glocks. Haha. Not something I would carry but I absolutely love the thing.

[NETim]

Some old adage about an Indian and an arrow comes to mind.

[jetfire]

Only stupid people who know dick about guns would buy a 1911 in the first place, let alone pay $2000+ for one. :|



There's no point, bro. The OP has all the answers already. If I wanted to have this discussion, I'd be having it over at GlockTalk.

Did you just drop a "bro" on me? That's like my English teacher saying "ain't".

[RoyGBiv]

I get it... I just can't afford it.

Me too... When I have the spare funds, this is on my list.

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/3539/2696698460095400218s600.jpg

[SLG]

Me too... When I have the spare funds, this is on my list.

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/3539/2696698460095400218s600.jpg


You're asking for disappointment.

[nar472]

Did you just drop a "bro" on me? That's like my English teacher saying "ain't".

:D

I love the 1911 they are a work of art and can be reliable when built by somebody that knows what they are doing I don't choose to edc one because I like to have two one for training and one for carry and also believe that being dedicated and becoming proficient with "a" platform is important so I can't afford to own and maintain two. But if someone else wants to become dedicated to that platform and can afford it more power to them:). Or if you want one in the garage to take it out for a spin now and then cool we all need to splurge now and then. Also as a side note I think they are one of the better looking firearms made and would be hard pressed to find one of the plastic wonder pistols that look better, just my opinion if course.:)

[RoyGBiv]

You're asking for disappointment.
Don't tease me. Why?

[SecondsCount]

Don't tease me. Why?

Because somebody took a perfectly good gun and chopped it down into a small package. Decreasing the size increases the likelihood of a poorly functioning 1911. It makes the gun more finicky, requires greater maintenance, and magnifies any imperfections in manufacturing.

[RoyGBiv]

Because somebody took a perfectly good gun and chopped it down into a small package. Decreasing the size increases the likelihood of a poorly functioning 1911. It makes the gun more finicky, requires greater maintenance, and magnifies any imperfections in manufacturing.


Sure, size matters. Understood.
The warning sounded more ominous than that.
Might be the late hour and the Eagle Rare. :D

[Odin Bravo One]

Certainly not my comment, so I don't know what SLG meant.............but I concur with his assessment on preparing for disappointment for my own reasons.

Just because they are expensive doesn't mean they actually work.

[F-Trooper05]

Don't tease me. Why?

Read post #11.

[Nephrology]

For what it's worth, my crappy old 5" RIA 1911 has given me a trouble free 1500 rounds of .45ACP. Only a 400 dollar pistol, too. I would be comfortable carrying it, if I didn't already have that taken care of by other guns.

[NETim]

Still in "Indian and arrow" mode:

"If you are aware, ready to do battle if it insists on coming to you and proficient with the gun you carry, even if its design dates from the previous turn of the century, you probably won't be seriously handicapped because you don't have the gun on the cover of this month's gun magazine." - Stephen Wenger

Don't know who Stephen Wenger is, but I like the quote obviously. A lot of truth in what he says.

[Chuck Haggard]

I used to be a 1911 guy, but much like my stripper ex girlfriend I found in the long run that regardless of the perks involved the maintenance was just too high.


The coolest 1911 I ever carried was an issue pistol when I was in the Guard. It was an actual 1911, built in 1913 by Colt for the original military contract, and was never converted over to a1. It rattled like crazy when you shot it but it was a reliable gun. I hope that gun ended up in a museum.

Nowadays I am also in the "don't get it" group. One of my friends bought a name brand 1911 a few years ago. Nighthawk I think, but whatever. At about the same time I had bought a Glock 17, a G26, holsters for both, a couple of cases of ammo and a trip down to TDSA-Tulsa for an AP-1 class. I still had less money spent that my friend did, and all he had was a gun sitting in the safe.


I was recently at a Kyle Lamb leadership class. He is not a fan of the 1911 except as a match/range toy. He repeatedly used terms like "1911 queer" when referring to folks who are enamored of them. You had to be there I guess, the SGM was freaking hilarious.

[SLG]

Don't tease me. Why?

Nothing ominous, everyone else hit it pretty well. IMO, if you want a gun that size, you really want a g19, or a g26. Not exact, but close enough, and it will work, and let you work, much better. Fwiw, when I look at needing a compact gun to do a specific job, I look for the most reliable, not the nicest, or closest to what I already carry (though that's a huge benefit). A compact gun is already a compromise in shoot ability and capacity, I don't want to make a compromise in reliability also.

[RoyGBiv]

Nothing ominous, everyone else hit it pretty well. IMO, if you want a gun that size, you really want a g19, or a g26. Not exact, but close enough, and it will work, and let you work, much better. Fwiw, when I look at needing a compact gun to do a specific job, I look for the most reliable, not the nicest, or closest to what I already carry (though that's a huge benefit). A compact gun is already a compromise in shoot ability and capacity, I don't want to make a compromise in reliability also.

Thanks... Yes... I know that a compact 1911 can be finicky. Eyes wide open on the sub-Commander issues.
I just like it. Something about a blued slide over an aluminum frame that I like aesthetically, plus it's made in TX (mostly).
I have my HK for reliability. I was worried there was something negative about STI I hadn't heard.

Maybe by the time I have the funds, I'll decide to go with the Ranger II..... or maybe starting an EBR is a better choice, but this is a 1911 thread :D

Cheers.

[NickA]

My nearly worthless 2¢: the 1911 will probably never be a carry gun for me, simply because I know I won't put in the time and money to make it work.
However, I do think that any "gun guy" should at least spend some time with one, and it doesn't have to be a $3000 custom job. Between the history and the way they shoot, there's just.... something. You may not "get it" and that's cool, as others have said there are better tools for most of us, but it's an iconic piece of the history of fighting handguns.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Al T.]

NETim - Stephen Wenger is a good dude. I've been on his email list for several years. http://www.spw-duf.info/

Back on topic.

IMHO, what through the 1911 platform into a steep downwards plunge was the whole 1980's popularization of the modified 1911 for IPSC. Junk parts, junk assemblers and junk shooters. Kimber was a brief ray of sunshine then went to the dark side.

A well built (and that's sadly hard to find) 1911 will run like a sewing machine. But it really takes an educated buyer in order to get that good 1911. Or a buyer who is willing to pony up the bucks to put good parts in the platform.

I think the best analogy would be something along the lines of an old car collector. That collector (to be competent) should know what they are buying and what's needed to keep it running.

[NETim]

NETim - Stephen Wenger is a good dude. I've been on his email list for several years. http://www.spw-duf.info/

Back on topic.

IMHO, what through the 1911 platform into a steep downwards plunge was the whole 1980's popularization of the modified 1911 for IPSC. Junk parts, junk assemblers and junk shooters. Kimber was a brief ray of sunshine then went to the dark side.

A well built (and that's sadly hard to find) 1911 will run like a sewing machine. But it really takes an educated buyer in order to get that good 1911. Or a buyer who is willing to pony up the bucks to put good parts in the platform.

I think the best analogy would be something along the lines of an old car collector. That collector (to be competent) should know what they are buying and what's needed to keep it running.

Thanks Al! Bookmarked.

[DocGKR]

Micro 1911's from any vendor are substantially less likely to run reliably than a full size 1911. Keep in mind with 1911 pistols that calibers other than .45 ACP and barrels shorter than 5" induce increasingly greater problems. I personally will not use any 1911 with a Schwartz firing pin safety (like on the Kimber II pistols) as I have seen high numbers of them fail; the Colt Series 80 firing pin safety is the only one I might trust for urban LE use, but they have also been known to fail in harsh environments (particularly surf zone and high dust) so I generally prefer a standard USG style 1911 pistol w/o firing pin safety.

If you want a micro carry pistol, you would be FAR better off and much more likely to have a reliable pistol out of the box by getting a G26 or M&P9c...

[JAD]

. I personally will not use any 1911 with a Schwartz firing pin safety (like on the Kimber II pistols) as I have seen high numbers of them fail;
...[/b]
I have been frustrated by this, because prior to the Series 2 a 4-5" Kimber was an easy recommendation. I asked about it on another forum, and was informed that a series 70 firing pin deactivates the Swartz safety -- nothing to grab onto. That's a pretty easy fix -- as easy as the replacement of the RSA in a Glock 27, which is equally necessary -- and much nicer than drifting out the rear sight to pull out the offending bits.

None of this makes a sub-4" 1911 a safe buy. They can be made to be reliable, but it's a lot of work for little benefit over the CCO form factor.

[1986s4]

Last summer I found a high end production 1911 used, at a good price, otherwise I couldn't have afforded it. If it were not for the high cost of .45 ammo I would be shooting it more, it makes me look good. But my P-30 can do that too, cheaper and lighter. If I could afford a high end custom 1911 I would probably get one, but I would still carry the P-30.

[Bill Lance]

I get it... I just can't afford it.

The women ,cars, or watches??:cool:

[NETim]

I get it... I just can't afford it.

I get sense of it... I just don't understand it.

Dig Nigel's double stack Marshall guitar!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq3YD7fNZTI&ob=av2e

[pangloss]

I don't quite get it either. Maybe since my Gen2 G17 was my first pistol, I just don't feel the attachment to the design. 10 years or so ago, I bought a used Springfield 1911 for, I believe, $360. It was too cheap to pass up and it seemed like a 1911 is a pistol that some one who enjoys pistol should own. It just sits in the safe. I haven't shot it in three years, but it keeps me from wanting a 1911 that costs more.

[ErnieB]

I grew up shooting 1911's and they remain one of my favorite handguns. I no longer own any (which makes me think I need to get one). I stopped shooting them regularly and they just seemed to gravitate out of inventory. I went through a phase where I had to try all the models that interested me. In one year I bought 3 Baers, 1 Wilson CQB, 1 Ed Brown, and a custom worked Springfield. Each had it's own issue and only one of the Baers worked perfectly out of the box. I really enjoyed shooting them and I became somewhat of an amateur armorer. Eventually, I went the polymer gun route as it seemed more practical as I wanted to spend more time shooting and less time tinkering. I still like 1911's but I don't think I will ever invest that kind of money in any handgun again.

[TAZ]

I've carried 4 1911's over the years. Kimber Compact (one of the first ones out), Wilson CQB Compact, Baer TRS and a Springfield Operator. Owned a Smith and Wesson Gunsite edition, but never carried that one. The only one to ever give me any issues was the S&W. While it would go bang with just about anything it would ding me in the face on a regular basis. The others ran like Swiss watches with the only mode being an oversized safety so my small thumbs could get at it more reliably. All fitted by me. The TRP and Kimber were production units and still ran as reliable as my Glocks or HK's. Never had long term issues and these guns were in service while I was without child and went to the range 2 days a week minimum. They kept my 650 and the UPS guy busy. Based on my limited experience, the whole you need a gunsmith on retainer to keep a 1911 functioning is quite an overstatement. Honestly, I find myself tinkering with my Glocks more than I did the 1911's. They weren't cheap guns though I will give you that, but they were very reliable, very accurate and super easy to conceal. The only reason I don't own them is due to a cash constrained year where having $1-$2k tied up in a gun couldn't be justified. Id still love an STI Ranger, but unless my G4-21 starts to flake out, I doubt I'd drop the cash on one. That money would be better spent on a college fund.

As to the why own one...why not? Why do city dwellers buy giant pick m up trucks? Why buy a Ferrari when the speed limit is 75? Why spend $20k on a Ducatti you're only going to ride a couple of months a year? Why buy a Rolex that will loose 20 seconds/day instead of the Casio that is atomic? Because you can and it makes you happy. Absolutely no other reason is needed to justify how you spend your hard earned money..

[SGT_Calle]

There's something about a 1911 I just can't deny. I see no need personally but I always see ones I'd like to own.
I met a young Captain at the range last week that was just finishing up firing his brand new Wilson CQB as I arrived. We spoke a few minutes and he let me fire a magazine full through it. The trigger was so light it blew my mind, and don't get me started on the nearly non-existent reset.
If or when I finally just do it, I'll definitely get a 1911 with a bobtail. My favorite cosmetic feature by far.

[Robert Mitchum]

If you are looking for top of the line accuracy they are hard to beat.
50 yards 10 rounds Marvel Custom Classic
2 Test Targets from 50 yards I got from Bob Marvel

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/cjstinks/0012-3.jpg?t=1286479966http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/cjstinks/mm0382.jpg


10 rounds 50 yards one of my Les Baers all rounds fit under a Penny.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/cjstinks/TRP0032-1.jpg

[LHS]

I grew up shooting a 1911, and started carrying during the AW ban, so my options were pretty simple: 8+1 rounds of .45ACP in a platform with which I was intimately familiar, or 10+1 rounds of 9mm in a platform with which I had a little time, but not as much. The choice was clear, and I carried my 1911.

Fast forward 10 years, and things have changed. I find myself shooting more and more 9mm because it's cheaper and I can afford more practice with it. I can carry 15+1 rounds of 9mm. I live in a far more urban environment, where the threat is likely to be multiple two-legged critters instead of one four-legged critter. I have far more time behind a Beretta 92 in the past 10 years than I do a 1911. All of these have altered my math, and now I carry a high-cap 9mm. I still love my 1911s, and I still take them to the range every now and again, and I still plan to teach my son to use one effectively when he's of age, but for me, the day of the 1911 has passed. It can still work, obviously, and in the hands of a skilled user it's formidable, but then so is a Beretta, Glock, Sig or M&P. YMMV.

[lamarbrog]

I get it in some ways, but I don't get it in others.

I would like to have a NightHawk CQB. I think it is a nice looking pistol, and the craftsmanship is really pretty remarkable. They feel smooth. It would be a pistol that I have "because I want it". If you have the money and believe in a capitalist society, then that's a plenty good enough reason. It will take a place alongside my M1 Carbine, H&K P7, etc... they have no practical application for me, I just have them because I want them.

As far as a 1911 for personal protection- no thanks. I'll take a Beretta 92FS or a Glock 19 any day of the week. The capacity is better on both. The Beretta is more reliable, and the Glock is lighter weight. Both are more capable firearms from a practical standpoint.

So, I do get the appeal of a 1911, I can appreciate the nostalgia. However, just because I find the Civil War era interesting doesn't mean I should trade my Beretta/Glock in on a 1861 Colt Navy and carry that. I see carrying a 1911 is the same light, although obviously to less of an extreme. It's hard to find a "nicer" pistol, but easy to find a more practical one.

[LSP972]

However, I do think that any "gun guy" should at least spend some time with one, and it doesn't have to be a $3000 custom job. Between the history and the way they shoot, there's just.... something. You may not "get it" and that's cool, as others have said there are better tools for most of us, but it's an iconic piece of the history of fighting handguns.


Well said. Which is why I coughed up the dust for a Colt WW I repro. I had a genuine Colt 1942 'A1, but gave it to a young protege who wants to start a collection. He'll give it a better home than my heirs. But after a year or so, I felt bad about not having at least ONE 1911 in the stable, so to speak. Actually, its un-American NOT to have at least one...:D

.

[Long tom coffin]

I think it can be summed up like this - "If you don't get it, nothing I say is going to enlighten you".

Not a slam, but really, if you can't grasp it now, you probably don't really care. I have a custom 1911, and I think it was worth the money. I still carry my HK P30, but I can truely appreciate the craftsmanship required to build my 1911. High end production guns don't really do anything for me, but I would take a Wilson Combat over a Springfield for better parts and fitting.

My next big purchase will be a New 70 Series Colt and a whole lot of my Gunsmith's time...

Count me in with the people who just don't get it then. I have shot several high end custom 1911's as my uncle owns several. His collection has probably cost him in the ball park of upwards of 15 k. I do not understand that. For that amount of money I could probably get a good polymer pistol, several spares, enough ammo to choke a herd of elephants and all the Private training I want.

I guess it comes down to mindset. All the guns I own serve specific purpose. I promote practicality and utilitarianism above all things. I promote having no emotional or financial attachment to my gear and I enjoy the fact that I could throw it all away and replace it immediately with duplicates with no second thoughts (see my sig).

Are 1911's nice? Sure. Are they nice enough to justify the inflated price tag and all the headache that comes with owning them? That's a big helping of Hell No with a side of Ask Yo Mama.

[Odin Bravo One]

For that amount of money I could probably get a good polymer pistol, several spares, enough ammo to choke a herd of elephants and all the Private training I want.

I guess it comes down to mindset. All the guns I own serve specific purpose. I promote practicality and utilitarianism above all things. I promote having no emotional or financial attachment to my gear and I enjoy the fact that I could throw it all away and replace it immediately with duplicates with no second thoughts (see my sig).


What if one applied that same mindset to the 1911? As has been mentioned in these forums before.......some people want a watch, others want a Rolex. Some people prefer an F-150 over a RAM over a Prius. Promoting practicality is all well and good, but what is practical to you may be ridiculous to me. Though, I will admit that I have a very similar mindset, I'm not personally emotionally or financially bonded with any firearm or inanimate object at all for that matter. Everything I own is disposable to one degree or another, and there is nothing I have that is irreplaceable, firearms or otherwise.

So when I take your first line that I quoted, and insert 1911 over "good polymer pistol", include the "several spares" and "enough ammo to choke a herd of elephants" and all the training I want.........what if one already has that, in the form of a 1911? Doesn't that meet the same endstate? What does it matter to someone else how I got there, or what car I drove? And why would I care?

[jmjames]

Promoting practicality is all well and good, but what is practical to you may be ridiculous to me.

Exactly. A "Glock guy" may wonder why I bought a P30 and a P2000SK over a G19 and G26 given the wide gap in both cost (favoring Glock) and the availability of accessories (also favoring Glock) and the ease of working on them (also favoring Glock), and they would have some good points. One could take this argument to the logical extreme, and successfully (I think) argue that if I could find a HiPoint that shoots straight and reliably (and from folks I talk to, HiPoint kind of acknowledges that their products stink and will happily keep sending you replacements until you get one you are happy with, since so few of their customers are that discerning...), then I'd have no good reason to buy a Glock of the same size, would I? From that vantage, I could say, "gee, I just don't 'get' the obsession with Glocks and M&Ps when you can get a used HiPoint for under $100 that spits bullets well enough for the overwhelming majority of self-defense scenarios". And I'd be right.

J.Ja

[derekb]

I applaud folks who can honestly claim a complete detachment from their guns, especially those carried for personal protection. It makes sense, it's a good strategy and I respect it.

I don't think, though, that there's an automatic negative connotation to having a psychological or emotional attachment to a gun. If someone's proud of their 1911 (or sig or glock or whatever else they've chosen) and that pride encourages them to train well and maintain their gear, what's wrong with that?

[Seven_Sicks_Two]

I appreciate the design, but don't keep my 1911's as part of the defensive battery. 1911's for punching holes in paper, Glocks for (hopefully never) punching holes in people.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I find myself looking at 1911 pistols more and more these days because they are very easy to shoot well.
If the foundation of self defense with a firearm is marksmanship, then doesn’t it become important to use a platform which is conducive to marksmanship?

When using a 1911 I’ve never shot before, I’m more accurate than with a Glock I dryfire and shoot often.
I don’t know what that means…but I’m getting the impression that it just may mean I should explore other shooting options, and that the 1911 may be an option I have to give serious thought to.

I like having lots of bullets. I like light weight…but I like accuracy as well…and for me, the Glock may be coming up short. I’ve had professional training, I’ve done lots of dry fire…I have a .22lr kit to fire lots of practice rounds with that gun but without the flinch…and the 1st time I shoot someone’s 1911 I’m hitting better than I ever was with the Glock.

So at what point do I say “It’s the gun, not me.”?

And at what point should I change platforms to see if it's true?

[Long tom coffin]

What if one applied that same mindset to the 1911? As has been mentioned in these forums before.......some people want a watch, others want a Rolex. Some people prefer an F-150 over a RAM over a Prius. Promoting practicality is all well and good, but what is practical to you may be ridiculous to me. Though, I will admit that I have a very similar mindset, I'm not personally emotionally or financially bonded with any firearm or inanimate object at all for that matter. Everything I own is disposable to one degree or another, and there is nothing I have that is irreplaceable, firearms or otherwise.


Sean-

In the line that you quoted, I had already stated that "I guess it comes down to mindset". It does. That doesn't necessarily mean I agree with other particular mindsets. Not all were created equal :)


My mindset is different from what you describe, vis-a-vis 1911's. Would a custom 1911 make a certain amount of sense in some situations? Certainly. By way of example, if I were living in commiefornia or taxachuessettes, I would look at a custom 1911 in .45 acp as a viable option.

Which would then quickly be dismissed in favor of a g30sf. But hey, that's just me.

I have no issues with people who want to carry or collect 1911's, but by the same token I have no issues with people who want to carry or conceal revolvers either. That does not mean I would currently select either one as a primary carry at this point. I may have in the past, but that was some time ago. Certainly not now.





So when I take your first line that I quoted, and insert 1911 over "good polymer pistol", include the "several spares" and "enough ammo to choke a herd of elephants" and all the training I want.........what if one already has that, in the form of a 1911? Doesn't that meet the same endstate?



As I stated previously, I have no problem with people carrying with whatever they want. That doesn't mean that I agree with what they perceive to be the validity of their decision.

Your analogies are not so appropriate. Apples to oranges. An F150 and a Prius are vehicles, yes, but vehicles designed to accomplish specific and differing purposes. Guns are not. Guns (in terms of this discussion) were designed to propel some projectile down the barrel into a target. From that starting point, we can state that commonly used handguns in service calibers (the 1911, glocks, M&P, HK products, etc) have at least a roughly equal starting point. Differing vehicles have differing missions. Handguns do not. They all have the same purpose and the same inferior capability when it comes to long guns. Hell, look at Doc's chart about bullet penetration depths and the marginal differences between. Handguns have more in common with each other than a f150 or prius ever will.

What comes next is the debate over corollary functions. The 1911 holds less rounds, is more expensive to maintain, is more prone to problems, and takes a good deal more money to feed. Those are facts. Whether or not those price and capacity differences matter to the individual involved is their own concern, and it is true that those may not matter to some people. If you have the disposable budget to throw at it, have at. I probably could, but for the reasons stated above, I choose not to.



What does it matter to someone else how I got there, or what car I drove? And why would I care?

It doesn't matter. And I don't care. I was reading the thread, and as people are wont to do on a forum, I offered my opinion. But my opinion was formulated on the benefits and drawbacks of carrying 1911's for modern day self defense. And to be perfectly honest, if a true assessment is given, the drawbacks of a 1911 for CCW in the present day mean that there are better, more acceptable options out there. Hell, DocGKR and LAV have said as much repeatedly.

[YVK]

I don't think, though, that there's an automatic negative connotation to having a psychological or emotional attachment to a gun.

You're absolutely correct. I'd admit to some degree of attachment to MY 1911; after all, it is a one-of-a-kind, never-replicated, multi-$$$ pistol. Does this mean that I am unable to look at MY 1911 critically, or I cook numbers when I record my objective performance data?



I

So at what point do I say “It’s the gun, not me.”?

And at what point should I change platforms to see if it's true?

Any time you want to, nobody is able to say "I paid my dues with Glock" other than you. The key here is being realistic about the fact that some guns are better than others for specific tasks, so what's your performance measures that matter? I don't think I'd be able to beat my Glock FAST scores with a 1911, I don't think I can beat my 1911 25 yard groups with a Glock.


LTC: take Sean's car example, remove F-150 and Prius, insert "similarly sized BMW and Toyota".
Your factual critique of 1911 is indisputable; having said that, I can easily list a number of attributes that make the platform unique in answering a specific set of requirements not met by other pistols. It all comes down to what floats one's boat at any given time.

[JHC]

I applaud folks who can honestly claim a complete detachment from their guns, especially those carried for personal protection. It makes sense, it's a good strategy and I respect it.

I don't think, though, that there's an automatic negative connotation to having a psychological or emotional attachment to a gun. If someone's proud of their 1911 (or sig or glock or whatever else they've chosen) and that pride encourages them to train well and maintain their gear, what's wrong with that?

And thaaat would be me. Sometimes it's been old S&W revolvers, sometimes 1911s and sometimes Winchester or Marlin lever actions. Oddly though I'm "promiscuous" about it and most of those I had a romantic attachment to (I mean romantic in the idealistic/quixotic sense . . . not in a sick way) I've long since sold off to fund more GLOCKS, ARs, and ammo for a household. The crude and efficient functionality of those creates it's own charm (romantic imagery again).

S&W N-frames and 1911s are the two most prominent examples which I've been attached to and sold off because they just don't contribute much to my shooting goals. But they still beckon. ;)

[ToddG]

If the foundation of self defense with a firearm is marksmanship, then doesn’t it become important to use a platform which is conducive to marksmanship?

A .22 Olympic free pistol is incredibly conducive to marksmanship. So is an Accuracy International bolt gun. Neither of those platforms is automatically better as a CCW weapon merely because they're easier to shoot, though.

Given the tremendous success so many people have with Glocks, as well as the myriad sights and trigger options, it's difficult to believe that it's the arrow rather than the Indian. How much formal marksmanship training have you had?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

A .22 Olympic free pistol is incredibly conducive to marksmanship. So is an Accuracy International bolt gun. Neither of those platforms is automatically better as a CCW weapon merely because they're easier to shoot, though.

Given the tremendous success so many people have with Glocks, as well as the myriad sights and trigger options, it's difficult to believe that it's the arrow rather than the Indian. How much formal marksmanship training have you had?

With a handgun, I've done tactical response fighting pistol, Massad Ayoob's MAG-20 class & De Bethencourt's 1 day intermediate level snub class.

[ToddG]

Mitchell -- I've done none of those, so can you be more specific. How much formal marksmanship training have you received? How much time has been spent teaching you how to hold a pistol, evaluate a sight picture, and press the trigger in order to score hits at the accuracy level you wish to obtain but cannot with your Glock at present?

[JAD]

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcHlPhJeeqHfowWb_1LNllg_ag2nRqK s5IUdVqO6otuuoB0EzZdw
Come on, buddy.

Srsly I generally have found the same thing as Mitchell -- I can't work the trigger on a Glock as well as I can a 1911. I have no such issues with long DAO triggers like the Kahr or revolvers, or even crunchy stagy triggers; and I have the same problem, but worse, on big double-column double-action guns like the 226 and 92; so I have always attributed it purely to a hand size issue. I've often heard that 1911s 'cover up' inadequate trigger management; I've never been sure whether that's an argument for or against them.

I took 250 with a Glock, so I'd say I had... maybe eight hours? in training that was focused on marksmanship with a Glock.

[Long tom coffin]

LTC: take Sean's car example, remove F-150 and Prius, insert "similarly sized BMW and Toyota".
Your factual critique of 1911 is indisputable; having said that, I can easily list a number of attributes that make the platform unique in answering a specific set of requirements not met by other pistols. It all comes down to what floats one's boat at any given time.

lol :). You are still needlessly paying more for the beamer. They both get you to point A to point B. Why overpay? :p


And to further add to the discussion, given the fact that my critique is indisputable, at what point does "floating your boat" become valid instead of merely vanity? I can think of some instances were a custom 1911 has merits that would be worth paying for to some, but to my mind those merits lie exclusively in competition. I was speaking exclusively of CCW. And when you look at it it, there really is no actual or perceived benefit to carrying a 1911 for concealed carry as opposed to a standard capacity polymer pistol.

[David Armstrong]

I find myself looking at 1911 pistols more and more these days because they are very easy to shoot well.
If the foundation of self defense with a firearm is marksmanship, then doesn’t it become important to use a platform which is conducive to marksmanship?
I would suggest that marksmanship is but one part of of the foundation for self defense, and it doesn't have to be a particularly high level of marksmanship. So a platform that is conducive to marksmanship may or may not be important to the self defense issue. How do the marksmanship abilities of a tuned PPC gun fit into the overall self defense paradigm? (I see Todd addressed that already!)


And at what point should I change platforms to see if it's true?
Any time you want, IMO. It is not like it will create any significant negative issues.

[JHC]

I can't shoot a better El Presidente, FAST, Rhythm (12345) drill, The Test, Bill Drill, better with a 1911 than I can with a G17. The only place where my 1911 outruns the Glock in my hands is for distant precision - 25 yards plus. [I haven't tried SHO/WHO drills with a 1911 in so long I can't say about that.]

My 1911 only noses out the G17 at 25 but pulls well ahead at 50.
I have spent the vast majority of my time in recent years on the Glock which is probably a factor but still. No way can I pick up my custom 1911 now and out perform the G17 on the balance.

[JAD]

I can't shoot a better El Presidente, FAST, Rhythm (12345) drill, The Test, Bill Drill, better with a 1911 than I can with a G17. The only place where my 1911 outruns the Glock in my hands is for distant precision - 25 yards plus.
-- I think that's what most people would say, plus the Glock holds more bullets! Doesn't seem to work the same for me, but that might just be me doing it wrong.

[Nephrology]

I'll bite. I would carry a 1911 if I had the money to buy a good one (really, 3 or 4 good ones) , the resources and know how to service it myself, and the time and dedication to know how to make it run, both when i'm on the line and at the work bench. They really are awesome pistols, and give me the warm and fuzzies all over.

As it stands none of those things are true. I carry a Glock 19. So that's what it is.

[D-Ric902]

I get it
I have 7 1911s and some are pretty high dollar. I love to shoot them
I carry a Glock 30

[ToddG]

I've often heard that 1911s 'cover up' inadequate trigger management; I've never been sure whether that's an argument for or against them.

I think we need to define some terms -- and some goals -- before this goes further.

When we're talking about marksmanship, what are our priorities? If we care about pinpoint bullseye slowfire accuracy, that's one thing. If we care about getting accurate hits under stress at speed, that's something else. It's a mistake to assume that just because a gun is easier when hitting a gong at 100yd with no time limit it will also be easier when you're trying to hit someone's ocular window at 7yd when you're bleeding and your wife's life is on the line.

If you pick up a gun and it makes you a better bullseye shooter, so be it. But like I said, that capability would come from a .22 free pistol, as well. There's far more to a gun than its bullseye scores, unless you're a bullseye competitor.

[s0nspark]

One thing that I believe should factor significantly in to one's choice is the amount of proficiency one already has with a given platform. It is one thing if you are talking clean slate here and quite another if one has literally years of training and experience carrying a particular weapons platform.

In the end this becomes a very personal choice and it is quite easy to criticize another's choice and make blanket statements based on one's own biases...

Of course I have my own opinions about what is "best" ... but they really only govern my own choices ;-p

[YVK]

And when you look at it it, there really is no actual or perceived benefit to carrying a 1911 for concealed carry as opposed to a standard capacity polymer pistol.

I prefer to carry in an appendix position, just like many others here. As such, I very strongly prefer handguns that allow for an active control over firing mechanism. Quite specifically, I will not routinely carry Glocks in AIWB until the Gadget is out.
I prefer the pistols that allow for an ambidexterity, or as much of it as possible. The minimum requirement is to be able to draw SHO or WHO, disengage safety without delay and start firing.
I also strongly prefer a laser on my carry guns; comes from prior experiences of training in low light/no light. I like Crimson Trace grips for their quality, CS, ability to turn them on/off and block laser beam with your trigger finger.

These three requirements (part of a larger list) currently exclude all standard capacity polymer pistols (barely passable option is M&P, but it requires a removal of right safety lever and loss of easy ambidexterity). Personal preferences are what they are - personal; some may consider what I listed above contrived, but I find those things to be an actual benefit of carrying a 1911 over current polymers.

[WDW]

I prefer to carry in an appendix position, just like many others here. As such, I very strongly prefer handguns that allow for an active control over firing mechanism. Quire specifically, I will not routinely carry Glocks in AIWB until the Gadget is out.
I prefer the pistols that allow for an ambidexterity, or as much of it as possible. The minimum requirement is to be able to draw SHO or WHO, disengage safety without delay and start firing.
I also strongly prefer a laser on my carry guns; comes from prior experiences of training in low light/no light. I like Crimson Trace grips for their quality, CS, ability to turn them on/off and block laser beam with your trigger finger.

These three requirements (part of a larger list) currently exclude all standard capacity polymer pistols (barely passable option is M&P, but it requires a removal of right safety lever and loss of easy ambidexterity). Personal preferences are what they are - personal; some may consider what I listed above contrived, but I find those things to be an actual benefit of carrying a 1911 over current polymers.

There are tons of polymer frame pistols that meet those three requirements

[YVK]

There are tons of polymer frame pistols that meet those three requirements

There are more requirements than I just listed, in fact, more important ones, but since I brought up those three - ambidexterity, CT grips, and active control over firing mechanism on reholstering - what are those tons of polymer pistols? I've just looked at CT website, not seeing much.

[JHC]

-- I think that's what most people would say, plus the Glock holds more bullets! Doesn't seem to work the same for me, but that might just be me doing it wrong.

I'm not above considering everything might look different if I had a Super. ;)

I pretty much dedicated the decade of the '80's to the 1911 and with the reloading I did back then, I shot quite a bit, drilling in the Modern Technique of the era. Just thinking about it since my last post, maybe the muscle memory etc of all the dominant time on G's over more than a decade is a lot bigger factor than I initially allowed. Particularly re the trigger finger.

I don't mean to argue that the Glock platform is inherently more shootable. Just that I don't experience the 1911 magical performance like I once did. But I still "get" the 1911. Just to have the one primo copy at least so I'm not a "communist faggot" as Ken Hackathorn termed me and the other guy in the class that didn't currently own at least one. :D

[jmjames]

There are more requirements than I just listed, in fact, more important ones, but since I brought up those three - ambidexterity, CT grips, and active control over firing mechanism on reholstering - what are those tons of polymer pistols? I've just looked at CT website, not seeing much.

The requirement for CT lasergrips is really the big showstopper, otherwise there'd be at least a few that meet your list, I think (notably the H&K's).

That said... they haze lasergrips for the CZ 75 and CZ 75 compact... which can be had in a polymer frame. Ditto for the Ruger P series. Not saying that the options are *great*, just saying that based on the criteria presented (I know you said you have a few others), there actually are non-1911 options.

J.Ja

[YVK]

The requirement for CT lasergrips is really the big showstopper, otherwise there'd be at least a few that meet your list, I think (notably the H&K's).

That said... they haze lasergrips for the CZ 75 and CZ 75 compact... which can be had in a polymer frame. Ditto for the Ruger P series. Not saying that the options are *great*, just saying that based on the criteria presented (I know you said you have a few others), there actually are non-1911 options.

J.Ja

Correct; didn't know CZs could be had in polymer and Ruger was polymer too. Hardly a ton of choices though.

Other, non-polymer choices include Sigs, Beretta and HP. These I am not enamored for other reasons, but they are much more subjective than those three I listed.

[Long tom coffin]

I prefer to carry in an appendix position, just like many others here. As such, I very strongly prefer handguns that allow for an active control over firing mechanism. Quite specifically, I will not routinely carry Glocks in AIWB until the Gadget is out.
I prefer the pistols that allow for an ambidexterity, or as much of it as possible. The minimum requirement is to be able to draw SHO or WHO, disengage safety without delay and start firing.
I also strongly prefer a laser on my carry guns; comes from prior experiences of training in low light/no light. I like Crimson Trace grips for their quality, CS, ability to turn them on/off and block laser beam with your trigger finger.

These three requirements (part of a larger list) currently exclude all standard capacity polymer pistols (barely passable option is M&P, but it requires a removal of right safety lever and loss of easy ambidexterity). Personal preferences are what they are - personal; some may consider what I listed above contrived, but I find those things to be an actual benefit of carrying a 1911 over current polymers.

So do you carry a fullsize 1911 in an appendix holster right now with all the accoutrements you have listed?

[JAD]

. There's far more to a gun than its bullseye scores, unless you're a bullseye competitor.
I'm interested in the (Rogers-rooted? Maybe) idea that a rolling trigger is easier to shoot quickly than a crisp trigger with a brisk reset. Again, different than what I learned in the nineties, but so is AIDS*. It certainly seems to be the consensus and I expect to go to Georgia to study it.

With that said, I am currently using a compressed surprise break and riding the reset (I know, I know) so 1911s work well from that perspective.

I will be screwed trying to find a rolling trigger to work with, though. Even M&Ps feel too fat.



*too soon?

[YVK]

So do you carry a fullsize 1911 in an appendix holster right now with all the accoutrements you have listed?

When I carry my full-size 1911 with light rail, albeit small profile rail, that's exactly how I carry it. If you really care, you can look up my review of Del Fatti AIWB holster in the respective section of this site, it shows photos of both of my 1911s and both appendix rigs. I had to remove the ambi-safeties temporarily, but that's not the reason why I don't carry 1911 right this moment. What I carry is secondary to my training goals. I think it averages to 3 month or so per year for a 1911 now, and the rest for a polymer pistol of a year (P30 since October, Glock 19 for two years prior to it).

[David Armstrong]

BTW, Bullseye (NRA Conventional Pistol) is an awesome "sport".
Agreed. For testing basic precision shooting skills it is hard to beat Bullseye and Bianchi Cup type shooting for handguns.

[JHC]

I'm interested in the (Rogers-rooted? Maybe) idea that a rolling trigger is easier to shoot quickly than a crisp trigger with a brisk reset. Again, different than what I learned in the nineties, but so is AIDS*. It certainly seems to be the consensus and I expect to go to Georgia to study it.

With that said, I am currently using a compressed surprise break and riding the reset (I know, I know) so 1911s work well from that perspective.

I will be screwed trying to find a rolling trigger to work with, though. Even M&Ps feel too fat.



*too soon?

Depends how far and long it rolls. I don't know that I'd be easily convinced of that as a "rule". Always worth exploration though.

[JonInWA]

A 1911 pattern pistol is both a piece of mechanical/industrial art with historical significance, and a joy to shoot. However, while I own several, and admire them, and the genius of John Browning (and others with whom I've had the pleasure of dealing with and collaborating with in the creation, set-up, and maintenance of my personal collection) I attempt to place my 1911 interests in perspective.

Basically, pretty much no matter how you try to get around it, they are conceptually and execution-wise pistols that are inherently linked and tied down to manufacturing and materials constraints inherent to the early 20th century. They have multiple small parts designed for hand-fitting by a skilled labor force to each individual gun. Their reciprocating parts have significant metal-on-metal bearing areas, requiring adequate and continuously applied/reapplied lubrication. Their manual or arms requires a higer level of focussed awareness and hand manipulations/movements. They were designed for an era where a sidearm was as much as a badge of office as a tool being put to use-and continual hard repetitive use was nowhere near at it's design conception what we subject our pistols to currently, and the standard to which we expect them to continuously perform at.

As others have mentioned, in this thread (and in multiple others, in multiple venues) a properly manufactured 1911, when concurrently properly set up/adjusted, can be both reliable and a joy to shoot. However, the accomplishment of that goal often involves a cost cross-point that is unacceptable to many in today's marketplace, particularly against the reality that there are multiple contemporary pistols possessing equal or superior ergonomics, equal or superior levels of reliability/accuracy, and with far lower maintenance requirements and buy-in costs. Then you throw in the significantly lighter weight, greater environmental imperviousness, and higher ammunition capacity of some of the leading contenders and for me it becomes difficult to make a viable, cogent and compelling case for choosing a 1911-pattern pistol for contemporary hard use over some of these alternatives.

Yes, I thoroughly enjoy my 1911s. But for daily carry, serious defensive and even serious competitive use, I'm far more likely to use and carry one of my Glocks. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate and enjoy my 1911s, it just means that when I objectively analyize them for my personal needs they are usually relegated to the "fun/hobby" category, with my significant use and training time being dedicated to other platforms.

Best, Jon

[10mm]

Maybe more people won't get the 1911 and they won't cost so much.I wish you could get a well made 1911 for a lower price.I've tried and tried to buy a Glock but they're not american made and too ugly for me.I got a M&P and now like the stryker pistol thing for light weight and capacity but I like 1911's more.I always end up shooting what is the most accurate for some reason.The craftmanship and excellent trigger of a well built 1911 still has a lot of appeal to me.

[F-Trooper05]

I've tried and tried to buy a Glock but they're not american made and too ugly for me.

Seriously?

[JAD]

Are you curious about the poster's desire to buy American where possible or his aesthetic opinion?

[JonInWA]

Maybe more people won't get the 1911 and they won't cost so much.I wish you could get a well made 1911 for a lower price.I've tried and tried to buy a Glock but they're not american made and too ugly for me.I got a M&P and now like the stryker pistol thing for light weight and capacity but I like 1911's more.I always end up shooting what is the most accurate for some reason.The craftmanship and excellent trigger of a well built 1911 still has a lot of appeal to me.

The craftsmanship and trigger inherent to a 1911 (well, most of them) is not the issue. On this forum, I'd gainsay that most of us are interested in how a gun performs under hard, repeated use, in challenging circumstances, environmentally or otherwise, with at times minimal maintenance and coddling, and without a gunsmith magically attached at the hip. "Ugliness" (which is a relative term, anyhow) takes a distant second to operational effectiveness, reliability, and durability-and ease of use under stress.

If nationality is a key criteria, some Glocks (or at least some of their significant components) are in fact made in the US at the Smyrna Georgia plant. Of course, some might argue that Georgia isn't in the US (and some southerners might vehemently agree-there's that pesky failed War of Seccession thing perennially in the background...but that's probably fodder for another thread/forum)

You might want to reconsider your criteria-just sayin'.

Best, Jon

[tjc357]

I own a few 1911's my last two being a NightHawk GRP,and a LesBear UTC. the GRP ran me $2750,and the UTC was around $1850.I chose to spend my funds on what I wanted and I saved up for about a year before I purchased both,you don't have to spend a fortune to get a good 1911 there are many cheaper brands that will shoot just as good as the highend ones will.The difference to me lies in the workmanship of the higher ends,my GRP can be completly field stripped by hand with out using any special tool's,other than a small punch for the pins,now some of my other "lower end 1911's" you have to use a little force to complety field strip and put back togther.You will allso notice that the "Higher end 1911" does not have all the tool marks of the others.My thoughts are buy what you want and if you realy want a Higher end 1911,just save up like I did you won't be disapointed at all.

[dbm]

I have a Colt Woodsman (Sport) .22lr that sits in a safe now. Bought it in the mid-60s. Used to shoot it a lot, but don't any more - it just sits in the safe. Not really good (and never was) for carry or competition. However, I sure am glad that I own it. I will never sell it.

[10mm]

I didn't mean to offend anyone for chosing a glock.I'm sure they're a fine pistol in many ways.I got a M&P when I got my first polymer pistol because it looked better,felt better and I like S&W.I can detail strip a 1911 and put it back together easy.Even the Kimbers with the swartz seem easy to me.I don't think the 1911 is hard to maintain myself.I'm open to getting a glock 10mm SF if the make them feel like a M&P and look better like a M&P.They just feel blocky and look blocky to me.I like the reset.The price is good,just haven't ever felt like getting one when I like the 1911 so much.

[BLR]

What the heck, I'll wade in. Let me qualify my post with this: no one here is a bigger fan of the 1911 pattern than me. That said, here's my perspective.

Pros:
Weight (follow up is easier with "major" caliber rounds).
Reliability (this is at best a "quasi" argument by the antis - 1911s are as reliable as anything else)
Ergonomics (at least to me, it's as good as it gets)
Durability (all steel, competition guns go on and on and on. Not to mention the MEU(SOC) guys are rebuilding on WWI and WWII frames)
Caliber (the 45 has an enviable reputation)
Slim profile (it's tough to beat a 1911 for concealed carry - nice slim profile)
Accuracy (it takes less to get a 1911 ready for Perry than a M9)
Parts/Aftermarket (What kind of trigger/hammer/etc do you like?)
Trigger (when done right - it's rifle grade)
Mag capacity (inline magazines will always trump the common staggered mag for pistols in adverse conditions - pure engineering there)

Cons:
Weight (I carry one most days, and it can be a PITA)
Parts/Aftermarket (You want to see a 1911 choke? Simply find someone who installed his own parts - likely he wont see a whole mag w/o a choke; or even better, the guy who is shooting "no name" mags!)
Caliber (even in the 1911, full power 45s are enough to cause all but the most dedicated to at least reduce the round count in practice)
Mag capacity (8ish is about the best you can do - not exactly a "high cap" pistol by todays standards)

So why the 1911? Because the advantages out weight the disadvantages. I do enjoy it when I hear that the 1911 is substandard - as if the last 100 years didnt happen, much less IDPA/USPSA/IPSC/and so on. It would be difficult to argue, with effect, that the 1911 isnt an effective design still today.

Much like a Glock or HK or M&P, a 1911 is EXACTLY what you make of it. Even some of the "cons" above are dubious. You dont need to spend $3k to get a good one - you do need to spend around a grand. But then again, you have to do about that for a HK too.

A little teaser for the sites 2000 round challenge. Half way there:

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/IMG-20120105-00225.jpg

[LittleLebowski]

I've tried 1911s (Nighthawk, Springfield, Kimber Series I, still have the Kimber). Didn't work for me. For the citizen, there's nothing wrong in carrying a quality one. However, when I saw a pile of broken ones in the Force Recon armory at Las Flores and the armorer bemoaning having to deal with 1911s, I began to realize that modular parts and simpler design are better for hard use, mass issue weapons.

I am not a fan of 1911s but that's doesn't mean a quality one wouldn't be a fine choice for someone prepared to invest the time and money into maintaining one and dealing with its quirks. I still think any shooter would be better off with a quality modern service pistol in 9mm with a piles of ammo, good holster, and sights over an expensive 1911 but that's not exactly a minority opinion on this training oriented site.

[BLR]

I still think any shooter would be better off with a quality modern service pistol in 9mm with a piles of ammo, good holster, and sights over an expensive 1911 but that's not exactly a minority opinion on this training oriented site.

All my "use" 1911s have modern ammo, good holsters, and sights.

But, ok, I'll bite. Please define "modern." Striker fired guns have been around for a long time. So have double stack magazines. Polymer frames - ok, that's been around for almost 45 years. Nearly all of them operate off a modified Browning locking block - that's nearing 100 years too. And the 9mm is older than the 45.

But I get the argument - I see what you're saying. And I dont disagree. Having introduced more than a few people to shooting, I'd go further than you. Many people would benefit by going back to a good service revolver. But "shooters," that's different. Personal preferences aside, I'd bet many of the people on this site would benefit from the 1911.

LB - what was the reason you gave up on the platform?

A parting thought (don't read too much pop psyc into this) - I've noticed more 1911 fans being open to other platforms than the other way around. The (tongue in cheek humor here) plastic-fantastic crowd seem to think of the 1911 as a plague on the pistol community for the most part.

All said and done though, you pays your money and makes your choice.

[LittleLebowski]

I really don't care for the argument on semantics of modern versus older designs. If it's not clear which designs are newer and differ (especially with drop in, modular parts), then it never will, either from willful disbelief or a quibble over semantics.

I gave up on 1911s for a few reasons: capacity (I've been shot with a .45 and it didn't take my arm off so I don't subscribe to the "bigger is better" argument, weight, maintenance (I've owned nice 1911s by anyone's definition and my older Glocks far surpass them in reliability), cost (9mm is far cheaper), and trigger. For me, the trigger was a crutch, keeping me from shooting well anything that didn't have a trigger like a 1911.

The day in 2007 when I picked up a Glock 19 and swore to master its trigger (adding an NY1 with 3.5lb connector) was the day I started noticing substantial improvements in my shooting.

Anyway, you asked. I still have my Kimber Series I but the EMP, TRP, and Predator are long gone and not missed. Maybe if there was a reliable, durable, somewhat less cost prohibitive 1911 in 9mm with magazines that just worked (drop in parts requiring no hand fitting would be nice too), and that would feed anything like a modern service pistol; there would be more folks shooting them. Otherwise, I really don't see the point with the weight and cost. I don't want to think about maintenance. I like having mags that just work, knowing that all I need is periodic spring replacement and a little bit of lube to go thousands and thousands of trouble free rounds. I am fully aware of problems with Gen4 Glocks; having pretty much trumpeted my own problems with them across the internet. I do know that modern service pistols have their own problems from generation to generation, model to model. Having spent literally thousands of dollars on 1911s, I am much happier with Glocks. My development as a shooter has not been hampered by going polymer; rather it has been enhanced.

[BLR]

I really don't care for the argument on semantics of modern versus older designs. If it's not clear which designs are newer and differ (especially with drop in, modular parts), then it never will, either from willful disbelief or a quibble over semantics.


I'm not interested in arguing.

Good night sir.

[F-Trooper05]

Are you curious about the poster's desire to buy American where possible or his aesthetic opinion?

Aesthetics.

[JonInWA]

All my "use" 1911s have modern ammo, good holsters, and sights.


A parting thought (don't read too much pop psyc into this) - I've noticed more 1911 fans being open to other platforms than the other way around. The (tongue in cheek humor here) plastic-fantastic crowd seem to think of the 1911 as a plague on the pistol community for the most part.

All said and done though, you pays your money and makes your choice.


Possibly because many participants on this site actually subject their guns to the litmus test of hard use on a regular basis, and based on that have developed both individual and collective empirical experiences that have led to a significant shifting away from using a 1911 pattern pistol for operational/carry (versus hobby) use.

In fairness, on www.10-8forums.com, many of the participants are active LEO/military (proof of accreditation is required for posting privilages), and there is a dedicated following (and a specific thread discussion area) for the 1911 pattern pistol. Hilton Yam, the website's founder/senior moderator has some excellent 1911 choice and operationally running criteria and guidelines on his sister site, www.10-8performance.com well worth reading through for 1911 users (and intended 1911 users or those contemplating/weighing using a 1911 operationally and/or for dedicated carry).

Not surprisingly, there's occasionally some good individual cross-pollination between members of this site and the 10-8 site.

Best, Jon

[TCinVA]

I'd bet many of the people on this site would benefit from the 1911.

As many of us have been heavily into the "shooter" end of the spectrum more than the collector end of the spectrum, many of us have tried the 1911 already. Many who have found that once you start shooting lots of rounds through even a good 1911, the amount of work and attention required to keep the weapon up and running went up dramatically. Many reached the point where they felt it was somewhat silly to keep spending that much time and money on a gun that didn't really do anything better than a $500.00 Glock. In my case I decided I'd rather spend the $2,000.00 it would have taken to buy another good 1911 (as I was already using a Les Baer as my daily carry gun) to buy a plastic gun and training and still come out ahead on the deal.



A parting thought (don't read too much pop psyc into this) - I've noticed more 1911 fans being open to other platforms than the other way around.


I'm a 1911 fan. I've spent rude money on 1911's and on training to get good with them.

I'm not "open" to a 1911 as a carry gun of choice because, and this is the crucial bit: I've done it already. I didn't abandon the 1911 because of what somebody said on Youtube or because of what some trainer somewhere said in a class...I opted out of the 1911 game because I lived with one as a tool for serious social purposes for a few years and just got tired of the money and headaches that come with a tool that in the end kills bad guys no deader than a generic plastic pistol that cost 1/4 of the price. I figured that if SF and SOCOM and the NYPD and the LAPD and JSO and the USMS and umpteen other agencies/units I could list from now to doomsday were managing to actually win fights with various incarnations of Generic Inexpensive Low Maintenance Handgun that I probably wouldn't be irreparably damaged by carrying one.



The (tongue in cheek humor here) plastic-fantastic crowd seem to think of the 1911 as a plague on the pistol community for the most part.


The 1911 isn't a plague. If there is something worthy of being described as a "plague", it's the obtuseness of those who insist on making a big argument if someone doesn't like their pet blaster, whatever their pet happens to be. It's ridiculous.

If somebody actually knows what it's like to really live with the 1911 because they've used one fairly extensively and have learned a lot about it, then they know what they know and they don't need my input. If they're curious and willing to embark on an expensive journey of discovery, then sail on intrepid explorer. Unfortunately the number of people who actually know is fairly small compared to the number of people who simply think that they know based on limited sample sizes and limited experience. As an example, I experienced a dude arguing with me about the overall reliability of Officer's model pattern 1911's based on his Colt Officer's model which he had fired all of 500 times over x years without a single failure. (According to his memory, you see. A log book? Who bothers with stuff like that?) That's equivalent to someone arguing about the reliability of an old Alfa Romeo because they managed to drive it all the way to the end of their driveway without a breakdown. (Which, in fairness, is a pretty spectacular feat for an Alfa.) Usually when people ask for advice they're looking for something that just works, rather than to strike out on a bold adventure into the unknown.

If a guy knows his JMB and wants to buy a 1911, rock on...the trouble is that there are also a lot of people who are in love with the idea of a 1911 moreso than the reality because they've never really lived with one. It's a bit like Angelina Jolie, really...she does look pretty good on screen, but then you remember Billy Bob Thornton and note the ridiculous tattoos. The baggage could fill a 747. Some people know full well and yet find themselves continually back in the sack with the rabbit-boiler. Just a habit they can't/don't want to kick, for whatever reason. That's legit, too.

[dbm]

Just can't believe this topic has gone on for so long - here on pistol-forum.com

[BLR]

I respectfully disagree with the "modularity" argument. Nothing inherent to the design of the 1911 precludes it from tuneability. Quite the opposite, the 1911 was the first "modular" platform with interchangeable grip panels, triggers, grip safeties, thumb safeties, and mainspring housings. And these modifications do not necessarily need to be laboriously fitted. It depends on what level of refinement you desire.

Parts interchangeability likewise, and has been successfully, incorporated into the platform before. The current consumer largely desires to trend to hand fitting as much as economically feasible. But the design is amenable to this philosophy also.

In so far as cost is an issue - sure, a good 1911 will always be more expensive than a Glock. But if one were to use cost as a justifier, an easy argument could be made concerning the relatively high purchase price of a Glock to the manufacturing cost. Glock likely mints out the frame for less than $50 finished, and probably much less. So a childish quasi argument could be made about being ripped off. I won't go down that path because it would serve no real purpose. I would say the vast majority of parts on a Glock are injection molded. From the frame, to the locking block, to the extractor on down. The slide and barrel, and springs, are the only parts I would be willing to say definitively are not. The purchaser alone can ascribe a value to that.

Magazine capacity - yep, a Glock will have it all over the 1911. Hi cap 1911s are notoriously magazine sensitive - just ask Les Baer and the HRT guys. And here in lies the real superiority of 9mm Glock over a 1911. The 10mm/45 Glocks, I will argue, have unmanageable grips for most people. 18 rounds of 9mm is superior to 8 rounds of 45. No argument there. This, in my mind, is the only point truly given up by the 1911 to the Glock. And the individual user must decide just how important it is.

On triggers - the 1911 trigger is clearly and unarguably superior for fast, accurate shot placement. The fact that it is often used as a "crutch" illustrates the point. Imagine how well it would have worked for you if you had spent the time mastering it as you did the Glock trigger. This is more of a training issue though. My weekly pistol training involves a dedicated 100 rounds of slow fire marksmanship from 50 yards. Will I compete at Perry? No, but I promise I can beat most people in marksmanship because I spend the time practicing. Rapid fire "combat drills" for most teach away from proper marksmanship. In this realm, the 1911s trigger is a decided advantage. I'll go as far as to say if you cant consistently hit a 8" plate at 50 yards with your pistol, you need to revise your drills - but that is just my non professional trainer opinion. Sight alignment, grip, and trigger control is learned here. Not on FAST, not on a Trip Nickel drill. There, they are exploited for your advantage.

On maintenance - I'll take exception to that too. Apply an electroless nickel to the frame of a 1911 and Melonite the slide, and it will be as tolerant to lack of lubrication as a Glock. I will offer this though - maintenance is not a bad thing. It allows visual inspection of the pistol prior to use/carry. If you blindly believe that a Glock will function w/o maintenance, you are asking for trouble. Extractors break on Glocks as much as anything else. And no lubrication does not do your pistol, any pistol, any good. Is a couple of drops of lubricant really that much to ask every few hundred rounds?

John, in so far as military/law enforcement is concerned, I would offer that the Master IPSC (and their competition cousins in other sports) subject their firearms to much harsher treatment than is seen by 99.99% of military or law enforcement use. It is suggestive that the FBI HRT/SWAT guys went to a custom 1911, and the MEU guys are still building their own. Is that empirical evidence of superiority? No, but it is very suggestive.

But there you go, different strokes for different folks. There is no real clear superiority when viewed objectively, only when viewed subjectively.

[LittleLebowski]

For me, "modular" means true drop in parts.

Also, I have personally witnessed a pile of broken MEU/SOC pistols in the Force Recon Armory (1st Force, Las Flores). Link (http://rationalgun.blogspot.com/2012/04/on-1911s-force-recon-and-behind-scenes.html).

You can't tell me it's easier or more expedient to service a 1911 in the field nor is it easier for a unit armorer to perform maintenance en mass in a say CONEX box out in the middle of nowhere with a minimum of parts, tools, and time.

The "so and so unit uses 1911s so therefore 1911s are best" argument died a long time ago with certain elite units eschewing the 1911 for Glocks.

[TCinVA]

On maintenance - I'll take exception to that too. Apply an electroless nickel to the frame of a 1911 and Melonite the slide, and it will be as tolerant to lack of lubrication as a Glock.


Maintenance != lubrication.

Maintenance in the 1911 world means keeping up with recoil spring changes, extractor tension, mag spring changes...etc. Where there are a lot of Glocks out there which have never received a single bit of armorer's attention (I can cite departments that are almost entirely comprised of sidearms that have never been touched by an armorer in years) and yet still manage to run, if you don't keep up with those details on a 1911 it's going to go on strike. Shooting a gun with no lubrication is not terribly good for it and is likely to result in malfunctions no matter what weapon we're discussing...but speaking as somebody who has watched under-lubricated 1911's shut down on the line it's difficult to sell me on the argument that a 1911 in general isn't any more sensitive to lack of lubrication than other weapons.



Extractors break on Glocks as much as anything else.


I've seen extractors break on Glocks, too...but not "as much as anything else". What I haven't seen is a need to fiddle with trying to tension the extractor in a 3rd generation Glock 9mm to make it run as I have with 1911's. Or needing to reprofile the extractor hook. Etc.

[LittleLebowski]

With the amount of metal on metal contact that a 1911 has, it's painfully obvious how much more lubrication it needs. I believe Vickers has a checklist on his site of all of the lube points one must check on a 1911.

So, how much does it cost to Melonite and apply electroless nickel to a properly fitted 1911 (of course "properly fitted" meaning loose or tight fit is as hotly debated in the 1911 camps as the eternal 1911 magazine debate)? At what point after dumping all of this money into a 1911 does the hardware gains surpass the software gains of simply buying a Glock/M&P/PPQ and training? That's what this is all about: the 1911 guys are trumpeting that the hardware is superior and the modern service pistol guys are saying that you can't get there without training.

I know I'd rather have as my partner the guy that has a coupla thousand rds through his $500 gun rather than the guy with the $2k 1911 and a few hundred rds at most.

[BLR]

For me, "modular" means true drop in parts.

Also, I have personally witnessed a pile of broken MEU/SOC pistols in the Force Recon Armory (1st Force, Las Flores). Link (http://rationalgun.blogspot.com/2012/04/on-1911s-force-recon-and-behind-scenes.html).

You can't tell me it's easier or more expedient to service a 1911 in the field nor is it easier for a unit armorer to perform maintenance en mass in a say CONEX box out in the middle of nowhere with a minimum of parts, tools, and time.

The "so and so unit uses 1911s so therefore 1911s are best" argument died a long time ago with certain elite units eschewing the 1911 for Glocks.

On drop in parts - is it your contention that 1911s do not have drop in parts as a result of design or manufacturing? I believe we are talking about two things here, design and execution. I refer to design, and I believe you refer to execution. I will offer that execution is driven by market, that being consumer demand for a 1911 that doesn't "rattle." In that light, it matter to which we are arguing (see, semantics and definitions do matter!). In other words, the lack of a modular 1911 is a result of market demand. LL - would you go out and buy a 1911 that was modular as you describe it? I would be willing to bet for each statement like that, 99 out of 100 would not even if it existed. Can you service a CQB or Pro out in the middle of nowhere easily? Nope. Not a chance. Can you service a standard 1911A1? Yep. I'll cite WWII, Korea and Vietnam as an example. But again, this argument is an execution argument, not a design argument.

On piles of broken MEU pistols - I'd bet most of those in the "broken pile" are represented by WWII generation frames that have been banging along since 1945 or earlier. However, without knowledge first hand knowledge of the pistols or proper documentation, it would represent anecdotal evidence at best. That link provided a paragraph to read - not much detail. The Pros in the hands of the MEU and HRT (among others) have been banging along long enough to counter that instance. Not to mention the number of very high round count comp guns. On the "so and so units" - apparently I didn't describe my position clearly. I do not let decisions on hand gun selection by anyone else influence mine. To do so would be foolish at best. Aside from reliability, I doubt anyone else has the exact set of requirements that I do. I merely was implying that "elite" units were not jumping ship as enthusiastically as some would have you believe.

TC - what were the finishes of the 1911s that shut down? I have more than a passing knowledge of tribology, and would offer the finishes came into play. I'm a little confused about the maintenance needed to keep a 1911 running properly. You seem to be implying my CQB should need depot level maintenance every X number of rounds. I'm not seeing it. Springs, regardless if they are 1911 springs or Glock springs, need replacing to ensure function. Same with cleaning and lubrication. I haven't noticed the need for retensioning and fiddling as you have. But that is just that, individual experience. But let's consider the maintenance argument a bit further. I do not mean to be (or sound to be) condescending here, but is that really an argument that you want to make? That sounds like a training deficiency to me. If I were in some god for saken, sandy hole, I'd give my Glock the exact same attention as a 1911 in terms of maintenance. If your life depends on it, I would that that prudent. After all, did we not learn our collective lesson with the M16 in Vietnam? The original issuees ran them just fine - but they also maintained them. The subsequent issuees did not do so because they were told they didn't need to. Adn we all know what happened. Who honestly believes a machine needs no maintenance??? Whether it's made by Glock or Baer.

From my perspective, and just that, many of the arguments being made are not being given the time and study needed to form a valid, rational opinion. Anecdotal references don't hold up (or at least shouldn't) in court, nor should they with enthusiasts of pistols like us when forming opinions.

I will offer this - there are pros and cons of every decision. I will agree that the Glock is more often a "ready to shoot" gun right out of the box. But then again, Glock only sells one version of the 17, and there is only one Glock making them. So the comparison isn't exactly apples to apples. Consider this a nod to the execution perspective.

To LL and TC - I would suggest you consider your perspective. Do you believe that the faults you see are design based, or execution based?

[F-Trooper05]

From my perspective, and just that, many of the arguments being made are not being given the time and study needed to form a valid, rational opinion. Anecdotal references don't hold up (or at least shouldn't) in court, nor should they with enthusiasts of pistols like us when forming opinions.

For what it's worth, the arguments Lebowski and TC are making are the exact same arguments that LAV and Ken Hackathorn make on a regular basis. I'd call that somewhat valid and rational.

[TCinVA]

I will offer that execution is driven by market, that being consumer demand for a 1911 that doesn't "rattle."

I don't believe anybody in Force or Delta cared much about whether or not a 1911 "rattled"...and yet they still needed competent armorers to spend significant time working with parts to keep guns operational, to the point of issuing multiple guns in the hopes that one would be operational while the other(s) were being worked on. Are there people who take the fit and finish thing too far on 1911's? Absolutely. That's not the whole of the problem, though.



TC - what were the finishes of the 1911s that shut down? I have more than a passing knowledge of tribology, and would offer the finishes came into play.


Well, the weapons ranged from blued steel Colts to various Nighthawks with the high-speed super slick finishes. I recall being in one class where a bunch of expensive 1911's with super-duper finishes shut down about 1/2 way into day 1. They worked much better after getting the "You can't lube 1911's like Glocks" speech and being shown how to properly lube a 1911 to work for more than a couple of hundred rounds.



I'm a little confused about the maintenance needed to keep a 1911 running properly. You seem to be implying my CQB should need depot level maintenance every X number of rounds. I'm not seeing it. Springs, regardless if they are 1911 springs or Glock springs, need replacing to ensure function.


Glock does recommend replacement intervals for various springs, and if ignored for long enough you can experience serious problems with them. No question. Equally true, however, is that if you give me a 1911 that hasn't had anything replaced on it in 10,000 rounds and a Glock 17 that hasn't had anything replaced on it in 10,000 rounds, odds are that the Glock is going to still run. In other words, there are a bunch of police departments out there with sub-standard maintenance on their Glock sidearms precisely because they can get away with it.



But that is just that, individual experience.


It's somewhat more than just my experience, as on a number of occasions over the years I've seen 1911 shooters on a bench attempting to adjust the tension on their extractor while the rest of the class was shooting. It's "my" experience in the sense that I saw it with my own two eyes, but it wasn't my gun giving the problem. For a long time I considered myself the most charmed 1911 shooter on the planet because my gun worked a hell of a lot better than anybody else's I encountered. Of course, I was also the guy in his room with the 1911 detail stripped for cleaning while other people did such non-cool stuff like eat dinner, or who was swapping recoil and mag springs instead of doing something as non-1911ish as eating lunch...but my gun worked. You betcha, my gun worked.



But let's consider the maintenance argument a bit further. I do not mean to be (or sound to be) condescending here, but is that really an argument that you want to make? That sounds like a training deficiency to me. If I were in some god for saken, sandy hole, I'd give my Glock the exact same attention as a 1911 in terms of maintenance. If your life depends on it, I would that that prudent. After all, did we not learn our collective lesson with the M16 in Vietnam? The original issuees ran them just fine - but they also maintained them. The subsequent issuees did not do so because they were told they didn't need to. Adn we all know what happened. Who honestly believes a machine needs no maintenance??? Whether it's made by Glock or Baer.


Yes, maintenance is important no matter what pistol you have. The difference here is margin for error. Say I'm a police officer and my issued sidearm has passed the manufacturer's recommendation for replacing an important wear item like the recoil spring assembly. Just head to the armorer and get it done, right? Well, no, because he's on vacation for two weeks. Oh, and the department didn't actually order any spare recoil springs, so they don't have any. Replace it yourself? Sure...and if you're caught, it's a serious breech of policy that will probably result in your termination because they're deathly afraid that an officer is going to lighten his trigger and shoot someone with it and then they'll be sued.

Should it work that way? Hell no. Does it? Yes.

As for being in a sandy hole, the guys we send to the more unpleasant parts of the world typically stay pretty busy either training for the missions they undertake or actually doing them. They also have a ton of equipment that all requires some level of PM to stay functioning...which might be a clue as to why units that have that sort of op tempo frequently have a significant in-house logistics section concerned with keeping their guns up and running. The benefits of having Uncle Sam care enough to keep a skilled armorer and some spare parts easily accessible can't really be overstated if you're talking about toting a 1911.



Anecdotal references don't hold up (or at least shouldn't) in court, nor should they with enthusiasts of pistols like us when forming opinions.


A single anecdote is certainly worthless. But there's a difference between an anecdote and a pattern. I'm not saying anything here that you wouldn't hear from Ken Hackathorn if you posed the same questions to him. I say that knowing for a fact that several of our PF.com members have either talked with him on the same subjects that I have or were actually physically present when we had these sorts of chats. We're not talking about some sort of weird, bizarre, off-the-wall experiences that deviate from the norm, here...we're discussing the norm. When the people who have the most experience actually living with the 1911 as a tool for serious social purposes say certain things and my own personal experiences and observations with various 1911's I've owned or I've watched others use on the range falls exactly in line with what people who have seen far more than I ever will have stated...well...it seems pretty solid.



I will offer this - there are pros and cons of every decision. I will agree that the Glock is more often a "ready to shoot" gun right out of the box. But then again, Glock only sells one version of the 17, and there is only one Glock making them. So the comparison isn't exactly apples to apples.


That's certainly true. Long, long ago when the 1911 was adopted as a military weapon, there was the equivalent of a TDP for the manufacture of the pistol and for the manufacture of the ball ammunition that was designed for optimum feed reliability in the properly manufactured weapon. Most folks expect more than what those TDP-faithful 1911's delivered these days, including the ability to feed ammo that wasn't specifically designed to feed reliably in 1911's.



To LL and TC - I would suggest you consider your perspective. Do you believe that the faults you see are design based, or execution based?

Both. The 1911's feed path was designed in a more complicated fashion with more radical angles than the feed path of, say, a Glock...which is why the margin for error on them is so low. If the extractor tension is right, the recoil spring is in proper spec, the mag spring is in proper spec, the thing is properly lubed, and the extractor is grabbing the right part of the case, (and all of this is individual to a specific specimen) then the thing will run. If any of those things goes slightly out of spec the odds of some sort of stoppage goes up considerably. Contrast that with a Glock 17 where the recoil spring can be worn out, the extractor plunger spring can be worn out, the mag spring can be worn out, and the weapon is actually making an audible "chirp" when fired because it's bone dry metal on metal contact...and the gun will still work.

There's more that can go wrong in the feeding cycle of a 1911 than, say, a Glock. That is, in fact, why weapons like the Glock are designed the way that they are. As brilliant an engineer as JMB was, he didn't have high speed video and it's worth noting that pretty much every successful semi-auto handgun that followed had a very different approach to the relationship between the round in the magazine and the waiting chamber.

Lots of people certainly screw up the manufacture of 1911's. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who makes 1911's and they'll tell you why every other maker is making it incorrectly because you're really supposed to do it this way. And see? We test the guns before they leave the facility to ensure function! Not with the ammo that you are going to use, of course...

There's a lot of room for disagreement on the exact specs for a 1911 precisely because there's so much room for error in feeding. Ostensibly Les Baer thought an extended ejector would help ensure reliable function of my 1911. When I handed the gun to Larry Vickers to give it a once over, in the blink of an eye he applied the extended ejector to a belt sander to produce a regular length ejector. Apparently he didn't see eye to eye on Baer's sentiments on the extended ejector. Or the extractor hook shape. Or the tension of the extractor. Or....

[jmjames]

To LL and TC - I would suggest you consider your perspective. Do you believe that the faults you see are design based, or execution based?

I can say with absolutely no uncertainty that many of the problems with the 1911 pattern are design based. My experience with a 1911 is very short compared to the folks here (a few months with a cheap one), but it was enough to convince me that the design has fundamental flaws that require a large amount of quality worksmanship from the get-go and periodic maintenance from someone who treats 1911 maintenance as an "art" with "guidelines" not "rules" and the experience to back it up.

From my relatively inexperienced view, the 1911 pattern suffers from two absolutely critical design flaws: the feed system (magazines + ramp + extractor) and the extractor.

I am convinced, without a doubt, that the reliability of an H&K or a Glock would drop dramatically if we made the following changes to make it more like the 1911 design:

* Steep feed ramp angle - the round comes in sharply and can get stuck on the "roof" of the chamber as it comes forwards, the "3 point jam". This is why 1911 ramps need to be really well polished. A less steep ramp would dramatically aid in feeding, and make magazine selection so much less critical.

* The way the rim fits into the extractor during the feed is an issue. Take a look at the directions for replacing an extractor if you don't believe me. Why do I need to take a brand new, "drop in" extractor, and immediately proceed to bevel and round parts of it in order for the rim to smoothly come in? This is actually caused by the big standout 1911 design flaw...

* ... the internally tensioned extractor. The extractor situation is a mess. It gets loose in a round count that is a fraction of the lifespan of other designs. It is quite telling that one of the BHP's big changes is the extractor, that many "improved" 1911 pistols (like the SIG's) dump it, and that, to the best of my knowledge, NO ONE has used an internally tensioned extractor since on a pistol that was well received on the reliability end. Replacing it is an "art" (tensioning, profiling the claw, etc.) that varies from gun-to-gun. While replacing the extractor on a Glock, H&K, etc. may range from "2 minute job" to "an hour of frustration trying to squeeze a spring into place", the fact is, once the parts have been put into their proper place, the job is done. With a 1911, a new owner can easily drop $100 just on ammo to test and verify the functioning of a new extractor.

And it's that last item that gets me the most with the 1911 design. Every time you swap a part that requires *any* amount of hand-fitting (or the spring, for that matter), it's like having a brand-new pistol, and you should treat it like such. The pistol that was reliable but due for a spring change... well, the new springs may have the same original tension as the old, but other parts have worn since then and can't handle the original tension, and a simple spring change requires $100 worth of ammo to test the changes and verify that the pistol is trustworthy again.

There are a lot of things to like about the 1911 pattern. blr outlined many of them above, though I disagree with some of them (it's not as slim as folks think it is, for one...).

But, at the end of the day, the 1911 pattern is flawed, and even a gun that came with perfect worksmanship out of the box is going to be subject to the capabilities of the owner (or the owner's ability and willingness to send it to a 1911 wizard on a regular basis) on the maintenance end, and that's where the design flaws will start to shine... when, at 5,000 rounds, a non-wizard replaces that extractor...

J.Ja

[BLR]

I can say with absolutely no uncertainty that many of the problems with the 1911 pattern are design based. My experience with a 1911 is very short compared to the folks here (a few months with a cheap one), but it was enough to convince me that the design has fundamental flaws that require a large amount of quality worksmanship from the get-go and periodic maintenance from someone who treats 1911 maintenance as an "art" with "guidelines" not "rules" and the experience to back it up.

From my relatively inexperienced view, the 1911 pattern suffers from two absolutely critical design flaws: the feed system (magazines + ramp + extractor) and the extractor.

I am convinced, without a doubt, that the reliability of an H&K or a Glock would drop dramatically if we made the following changes to make it more like the 1911 design:

* Steep feed ramp angle - the round comes in sharply and can get stuck on the "roof" of the chamber as it comes forwards, the "3 point jam". This is why 1911 ramps need to be really well polished. A less steep ramp would dramatically aid in feeding, and make magazine selection so much less critical.

* The way the rim fits into the extractor during the feed is an issue. Take a look at the directions for replacing an extractor if you don't believe me. Why do I need to take a brand new, "drop in" extractor, and immediately proceed to bevel and round parts of it in order for the rim to smoothly come in? This is actually caused by the big standout 1911 design flaw...

* ... the internally tensioned extractor. The extractor situation is a mess. It gets loose in a round count that is a fraction of the lifespan of other designs. It is quite telling that one of the BHP's big changes is the extractor, that many "improved" 1911 pistols (like the SIG's) dump it, and that, to the best of my knowledge, NO ONE has used an internally tensioned extractor since on a pistol that was well received on the reliability end. Replacing it is an "art" (tensioning, profiling the claw, etc.) that varies from gun-to-gun. While replacing the extractor on a Glock, H&K, etc. may range from "2 minute job" to "an hour of frustration trying to squeeze a spring into place", the fact is, once the parts have been put into their proper place, the job is done. With a 1911, a new owner can easily drop $100 just on ammo to test and verify the functioning of a new extractor.

And it's that last item that gets me the most with the 1911 design. Every time you swap a part that requires *any* amount of hand-fitting (or the spring, for that matter), it's like having a brand-new pistol, and you should treat it like such. The pistol that was reliable but due for a spring change... well, the new springs may have the same original tension as the old, but other parts have worn since then and can't handle the original tension, and a simple spring change requires $100 worth of ammo to test the changes and verify that the pistol is trustworthy again.

There are a lot of things to like about the 1911 pattern. blr outlined many of them above, though I disagree with some of them (it's not as slim as folks think it is, for one...).

But, at the end of the day, the 1911 pattern is flawed, and even a gun that came with perfect worksmanship out of the box is going to be subject to the capabilities of the owner (or the owner's ability and willingness to send it to a 1911 wizard on a regular basis) on the maintenance end, and that's where the design flaws will start to shine... when, at 5,000 rounds, a non-wizard replaces that extractor...

J.Ja

I get that you guys are trying to make a point, and understand that some of the numbers, like J.Ja, your last figure, were typed to illustrate a point.

But I'll state this: A 1911 isn't for everyone in every instance. But I never said it was. The point behind my original post was, and still is, there are advantages (and disadvantages) to the 1911. That is from someone who "gets it."

The CQB here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3977-A-Dirty-CQB) has not received the TLC that you guys seem to be convinced is necessary. It runs 100% clean, dirty and anywhere in between. All the springs are original except the recoil and mainspring. The extractor has not been tuned since new - back in 2000. It has been my go-to gun for USPSA, IDPA, steel and bowling pin. It's choked over it's life. But not more than a few times. If what you guys say is universally true, I'd be interested in an explanation as to why. It normally sees 200g LSWCs over 5g of bullseye. That gun has seen nearly 30k since I bought it new with no breakage or depot level maintenance.

J.Ja - as an engineer and 1911 enthusiast, I have taken a keen eye to the 1911 design. I dont really agree with many of your points. In fact, the original "1911" came with an external extractor. The move to the internal was to minimize parts and ease replacement. Replacing a 1911 extractor isn't as involved as you believe it to be. Nor is tensioning it. It really isn't the weak link as is described by its detractors. And FWIW - the original BHP came with an internal extractor.

But guys, in the end, it's just a matter of preference. I prefer the 1911. I don't need to resort to outlandish statements to justify my position. I decided to weigh in on this as one of the few 1911 enthusiasts on this site - not to convince anyone.

So, cheers, and best to you all.

[TCinVA]

The CQB here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3977-A-Dirty-CQB) has not received the TLC that you guys seem to be convinced is necessary.


It's wet from obvious lubrication.

Experiment: Spray weapon down with degreaser until the point that it's bone dry. Repeat the round count. Report results.

It's great that your gun is running well with a minimum of maintenance...but if you really haven't retensioned the extractor in over 10 years and 30,000 rounds, odds are it needs to be done. Post a pic of how your extractor is holding the case in the slide. I'll wager it's flopping around in there like a dead fish. Proper mag spring and recoil spring replacement in a 5" gun chambered in .45 ACP that's properly lubed can cover a world of sins, my son.

That's why some of us 1911 enthusiasts tell folks that if they insist on a 1911, pick a 5" gun chambered in .45 ACP because it's the best case scenario in terms of feeding.

The larger point, though, is that you're arguing from the micro to the macro. You're arguing an entire series of handguns based on your sample of one. It's great that your sample of one is working splendidly, but it's difficult to extrapolate that result up to the performance seen with lots of guns over lots of rounds in lots of conditions. Doubly so when the information about how lots of guns over lots of rounds in lots of conditions have performed is so readily available.

[LittleLebowski]

I'd certainly like to see a several hundred pistol mass issue of 1911s have no problems in 30k rounds.

[BLR]

It's wet from obvious lubrication.

Experiment: Spray weapon down with degreaser until the point that it's bone dry. Repeat the round count. Report results.

It's great that your gun is running well with a minimum of maintenance...but if you really haven't retensioned the extractor in over 10 years and 30,000 rounds, odds are it needs to be done. Post a pic of how your extractor is holding the case in the slide. I'll wager it's flopping around in there like a dead fish. Proper mag spring and recoil spring replacement in a 5" gun chambered in .45 ACP that's properly lubed can cover a world of sins, my son.

That's why some of us 1911 enthusiasts tell folks that if they insist on a 1911, pick a 5" gun chambered in .45 ACP because it's the best case scenario in terms of feeding.

The larger point, though, is that you're arguing from the micro to the macro. You're arguing an entire series of handguns based on your sample of one. It's great that your sample of one is working splendidly, but it's difficult to extrapolate that result up to the performance seen with lots of guns over lots of rounds in lots of conditions. Doubly so when the information about how lots of guns over lots of rounds in lots of conditions have performed is so readily available.

I don't believe my "sample of one" is quite the non-representative sample you imply. But anyway, fair point. It is a small sample, and I can't argue anecdotal cases against LL and then use them myself. Though I must say, I don't believe I am arguing a point on a sample of one.

However, I could read your first paragraph with the perspective that a 5" 1911 in 45 is a bit more tolerant to maintenance they you guys first implied.

I do monitor the extractor tension though - it is as it came originally on that pistol. Which is that the case rim just barely flexes the extractor (maybe 0.001"). And, for the sake of argument, I'd like to know how spring steel would lose so much shape after only 30k of cycles in the clearly elastic region (generically, steel should see around 1 million cycles before failure). That is of course, assuming a properly made extractor is used, where you are not relying on an artificial stress in the extractor for "tuning". This is why magazine springs and recoil springs "take a set" - they are dissipating internal stresses from manufacturing. The point being that extractors make or break just about all self feeding firearms - 1911 or otherwise. Then comes lubrication and then springs. My level of understanding of the design and its operation might surprise you. I am by no means a neophyte to the pattern. I recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the design, and plan accordingly.

A question - how many of the 1911s that choke in classes are a mixture of parts? Say a Kimber with a Brown extractor and a Wilson thumb safety, with a Barsto match barrel? See my point? If you were to take a Glock, subject it to the customization (to varying success) that the 1911 enjoys, how reliable would they be in classes? Lets say you fit up a Barsto barrel into you Glock with a match chamber and a nice tight fit - would it gobble up everything still?

Like I keep saying - if you arent willing to invest the time to learn, a 1911 isn't for you. But it really isn't all that complicated or tedious to have and maintain a reliable one. You don't need be a "wizard," nor depot level maintenance to keep it running.

[YVK]

Blr - first of, if you looked down this thread, you'll see that I still carry and shoot 1911 for a significant minority of the time. I mention this as a disclaimer that I don't hate it, in fact I like it, trust it etc.

With that, a couple of points in a dissent:



On triggers - the 1911 trigger is clearly and unarguably superior for fast, accurate shot placement.

As I shoot more and more of different trigger systems, the point above is neither clear nor inarguable. If you asked me "the best trigger question" 3 years ago, I would've said "1911"; today - not really. Is it nice - yes; is it a gold standard of triggers - I actually don't think so any longer. There was a thread here about "ideal trigger", look it up if you care to see what people's opinions were.

I don't care if my 1911 rattles or not, but I don't want a Korean-era 1911 for a carry gun. My friend, my 1911 go-to guy, and one of the nation's recognizable 1911 pistolsmiths, Ned Christiansen, wrote on his site "reliability-ergonomics-accuracy, in that order". So, if stuff breaks, and it will, I want somebody to fit those beavertails, extended trimmed ambi-safeties, extended catches, long triggers etc for me. I can replace everything on Glock myself, and I haven't even done the armorer's class...

The one thing that I'd agree, based on a personal experience, that it doesn't require a special voodoo and ton of money to make a full-sized 1911 run reliably, as long as frame and slide are in specs. Reliable, durable, ergonomic put together is another story.

[TCinVA]

I don't believe my "sample of one" is quite the non-representative sample you imply.

If you're referring to the 1911 pattern pistol, you said yourself a few posts ago that there are a bunch of people making different ones with different parts. You have one of however many are manufactured by one manufacturer in a great big sea of people making guns parts.



However, I could read your first paragraph with the perspective that a 5" 1911 in 45 is a bit more tolerant to maintenance they you guys first implied.


I said very specifically that a 5" 1911 in .45 ACP is the best possible case in terms of feeding reliability for a 1911 because that's the objective truth of it. Once you chop the slide an inch or two (or three) and change the bushing and do lots of the other things that are often done to turn what was supposed to be a big workhorse pistol into a small, light handy purse-gun then the margin for error for each of the parts goes down until you have a very narrow window of success.



That is of course, assuming a properly made extractor is used


...which requires consistent sourcing of materials, and consistent production of those materials into the finished parts, and consistent quality control to ensure proper function. Now you'd think that all of that comes along with the decision to purchase an expensive 1911, right?

Market reality says that it doesn't.



A question - how many of the 1911s that choke in classes are a mixture of parts?


The overwhelming majority of pistols I've seen in classes are either custom or "semi-custom" guns...ones built more or less the same way that your Wilson was. While I'm sure it's happened, very few people buy say, a Nighthawk, and then turn around and immediately start putting different parts in it.

But let's not leave the parts discussion altogether. Let's chat about that. It's not exactly a secret that military units that initially used 1911's took frames from older guns that passed a series of inspections and then used parts typically thought to be the "best" available 1911 parts on the market to build up guns. Not unlike what a customer would do for a full-house custom pistol today. This meant new slides, new barrels, new bushings, new triggers, new sears, new safeties, new springs, new pins...and these guns weren't simply slapped together, either.

And yet they still exhibited lots of problems when handed to units that had a pretty high op tempo. The more the guns were fired, the more maintenance and attention they required...because some of the frames were old? Not very likely.



If you were to take a Glock, subject it to the customization (to varying success) that the 1911 enjoys, how reliable would they be in classes?


If you de-Glock a Glock by unintelligently modifying it then you frequently end up with problems. This is one of the reasons why we encourage people to really understand exactly what it is they are modifying and how it works. Note the number of threads where that sort of thing is mentioned or the thread about the Skimmer trigger.

...but, again...I'm not basing my statements on some parts bin special where somebody just threw together a random assemblage of parts. The majority of pistols I've personally witnessed problems with were as they were delivered by whatever manufacturer made them, be they Taurus, S&W, Kimber, Sig, Nighthawk, Wilson, Baer, or even real customs from various gunsmiths who built from whatever parts they like to use.


But it really isn't all that complicated or tedious to have and maintain a reliable one.

That's the key bit of it: It's complicated (and usually expensive) as hell to actually acquire a reliable one. If there was an easy solution we'd all know it by now. Unfortunately there isn't. I've been discussing a possible upcoming 1911 purchase with a few friends recently and the conversation has largely centered on how the guy who is going to make the purchase can do it with the minimal chance of being stuck with an expensive lemon. I mean, to an extent you can see a similar phenomenon in the Glock Gen 4 threads, but for the cost of a 1911 you can buy 4 Glocks and at least one of them has to work.

Multiply that by a couple of hundred/thousand. Now multiply the complexity of having to keep those couple of hundred/thousand guns working over a lifespan of 50,000 rounds. Suddenly you run smack dab into why lots of places ditched the 1911 and went to other options.

[BLR]

Blr - first of, if you looked down this thread, you'll see that I still carry and shoot 1911 for a significant minority of the time. I mention this as a disclaimer that I don't hate it, in fact I like it, trust it etc.

With that, a couple of points in a dissent:



As I shoot more and more of different trigger systems, the point above is neither clear nor inarguable. If you asked me "the best trigger question" 3 years ago, I would've said "1911"; today - not really. Is it nice - yes; is it a gold standard of triggers - I actually don't think so any longer. There was a thread here about "ideal trigger", look it up if you care to see what people's opinions were.

I don't care if my 1911 rattles or not, but I don't want a Korean-era 1911 for a carry gun. My friend, my 1911 go-to guy, and one of the nation's recognizable 1911 pistolsmiths, Ned Christiansen, wrote on his site "reliability-ergonomics-accuracy, in that order". So, if stuff breaks, and it will, I want somebody to fit those beavertails, extended trimmed ambi-safeties, extended catches, long triggers etc for me. I can replace everything on Glock myself, and I haven't even done the armorer's class...

The one thing that I'd agree, based on a personal experience, that it doesn't require a special voodoo and ton of money to make a full-sized 1911 run reliably, as long as frame and slide are in specs. Reliable, durable, ergonomic put together is another story.

Sure - I get it.

My parting thought on this subject: Glock isn't perfection. The 1911 isn't without flaw. You don't have to have a fine, expensive 1911 for it to be anvil tough and and reliable.

There is something to be learned from all the professional trainers and their opinions regarding the 1911. Problems arise, however, when things are not fully understood and accounted for. It is easy to wave a hand and make claims, as many have in this thread, without regard to understanding. A challenge to the, I'll call it, modern design crowd: When you saw the litany of 1911s failing and choking - was the root cause determined? Or was it simply the instructor illustrating to the class why not to carry/use/buy a 1911? For 99% of the audience, that might be just fine. But there is always the 1% that wants to know more. You are doing yourself a disservice by not seeking more knowledge. This goes for everything in life. Someone will always know more than you or be better than you. The successful in life learn from them - and advance further.

Cheers!

[BLR]

If you're referring to the 1911 pattern pistol, you said yourself a few posts ago that there are a bunch of people making different ones with different parts. You have one of however many are manufactured by one manufacturer in a great big sea of people making guns parts.

This is a design/platform issue how? That reads like an execution issue to me. Maybe we just have different perspectives.

I said very specifically that a 5" 1911 in .45 ACP is the best possible case in terms of feeding reliability for a 1911 because that's the objective truth of it. Once you chop the slide an inch or two (or three) and change the bushing and do lots of the other things that are often done to turn what was supposed to be a big workhorse pistol into a small, light handy purse-gun then the margin for error for each of the parts goes down until you have a very narrow window of success.

The same can generally be said with any recoil operated gun.

...which requires consistent sourcing of materials, and consistent production of those materials into the finished parts, and consistent quality control to ensure proper function. Now you'd think that all of that comes along with the decision to purchase an expensive 1911, right?

Market reality says that it doesn't.

A Glock is immune to this why?

The overwhelming majority of pistols I've seen in classes are either custom or "semi-custom" guns...ones built more or less the same way that your Wilson was. While I'm sure it's happened, very few people buy say, a Nighthawk, and then turn around and immediately start putting different parts in it.

But let's not leave the parts discussion altogether. Let's chat about that. It's not exactly a secret that military units that initially used 1911's took frames from older guns that passed a series of inspections and then used parts typically thought to be the "best" available 1911 parts on the market to build up guns. Not unlike what a customer would do for a full-house custom pistol today. This meant new slides, new barrels, new bushings, new triggers, new sears, new safeties, new springs, new pins...and these guns weren't simply slapped together, either.

I don't have the background to honestly comment to this point. I can only go by what I see in competition. I typically don't rely on second hand information of military units, which is what I assume that to be. If I am mistaken, please accept my apology. In the spirit of that comment, do you think if those guys would not destroy the Glocks? I'd be curious about this.

And yet they still exhibited lots of problems when handed to units that had a pretty high op tempo. The more the guns were fired, the more maintenance and attention they required...because some of the frames were old? Not very likely.

Again, this is beyond my first hand knowledge base.

If you de-Glock a Glock by unintelligently modifying it then you frequently end up with problems. This is one of the reasons why we encourage people to really understand exactly what it is they are modifying and how it works. Note the number of threads where that sort of thing is mentioned or the thread about the Skimmer trigger.

...but, again...I'm not basing my statements on some parts bin special where somebody just threw together a random assemblage of parts. The majority of pistols I've personally witnessed problems with were as they were delivered by whatever manufacturer made them, be they Taurus, S&W, Kimber, Sig, Nighthawk, Wilson, Baer, or even real customs from various gunsmiths who built from whatever parts they like to use.

I've an extensive collection of Wilsons, Baers, Nighthawks and (a single) Brown. Why is it that none of my guns exhibit the significant failure rate? What would you offer as a "success" rate for 1911s? 10%? 50%



That's the key bit of it: It's complicated (and usually expensive) as hell to actually acquire a reliable one. If there was an easy solution we'd all know it by now. Unfortunately there isn't. I've been discussing a possible upcoming 1911 purchase with a few friends recently and the conversation has largely centered on how the guy who is going to make the purchase can do it with the minimal chance of being stuck with an expensive lemon. I mean, to an extent you can see a similar phenomenon in the Glock Gen 4 threads, but for the cost of a 1911 you can buy 4 Glocks and at least one of them has to work.

I disagree with this, but cannot substantiate my position any more than you can yours.

Multiply that by a couple of hundred/thousand. Now multiply the complexity of having to keep those couple of hundred/thousand guns working over a lifespan of 50,000 rounds. Suddenly you run smack dab into why lots of places ditched the 1911 and went to other options.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, you and LL suggest not using a 1911 based on:
1. Cost
2. Reliability
3. Intensity/sophistication of maintenance. I'll lump parts fitting into here.

One can't really argue the cost angle - 1911s cost more than Glocks, period.

I do wish I could speak with some authority on the MEU, et al., 1911s in terms of maintenance, service life, and so on. However, without some verification (trust but verify!), such an argument point is irrelevant. Likewise, without a valid comparison expectations cannot be set, and the comparison is questionable.

TC - more directly at your training experience. I would suspect a great many of those you see fail with their NH have not, until they arrived at your class, ever tried to run their 1911 at speed. Babying a $3k pistol at the range and leisurely shooting do not iron out the process of shooting. Food for thought. If they were serious 1911 shooters, don't you think they would have known their gun (if it is indeed their gun) wouldn't run? How many of these guys really run their $3k gun under the clock prior to the class? I'd bet many more do with $1k guns, and hence the reduction in "issues" seen by instructors. That is the crux of the matter, and the heart of the "shooting class" argument. Who would show up to a class with a 1911 that didn't run 100%? I sure wouldn't open myself up to that in a Todd class, nor yours, nor anyone elses. Merely buying a $3k 1911 does not guarantee you will be able to exploit the tool you have. This is why I suspect all 1911 related class stories. As empirical evidence of this - think back, do those Nighthawks look well worn or new? The only reason my CQB looks new is because it was recently recoated in Cerakote. Before that, it looked like this:

http://1911enthusiast.com/blog.php

and

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=323267

Because if they are not - that is suggestive.

YVK - can't find the thread. However, if you apply a vector analysis on the trigger during operation, a significant force is applied in the downward direction. The straight back 1911 trigger exhibits no such torsion moment around the trigger. To me, this is particularly noticeable on my stock M&P.

[LittleLebowski]

If I spend $3k on a pistol, it had better run right out of the box. My $400 (delivered to my FFL) Gen2 Glock does.

[tjc357]

I've ran 2200rnds through both of my 1911's(4400rnds total) and yes the first 300-400rnds I did get some FTE,but all I can say now is they run flawless with out a problem,allso I use good quailty mags ,that helps alot with any 1911 as far as I'm concerened.I try to shoot 600-700rnds a month (and that is done in one day),

[BLR]

TC - thanks for the discussion. It's always interesting to test the logic behind a decision, as I'm sure you did in your move to Glocks. I'd be interested to see a rigorous, well engineered comparison between the two. I'm not sure it has legitimately happened yet.

That said - I'll continue to carry my dated design 1911 and wear mechanical watches with a great deal of self satisfaction!

Cheers!

Bill

[Odin Bravo One]

The man.......not the machine determines the outcome.

[LittleLebowski]

Wait, so the MEU SOC 1911s I saw that were down were just old and the 1911s that TCinVA saw go down in classes had poor quality parts and/or were improperly vetted by their owners?

Seeing a trend here.

[TGS]

Wait, so the MEU SOC 1911s I saw that were down were just old and the 1911s that TCinVA saw go down in classes had poor quality parts and/or were improperly vetted by their owners?

Seeing a trend here.


Every single 1911 I've seen in a course has gone down or at the very least choked. Even the Les Baer and a completely custom build.

If those went down because of poor quality parts or they were vetted improperly, ok. I'll go with that. That doesn't change my mind one bit, though, because that's a whole lot of improper parts and vetting for the 1911 that doesn't need to be performed with my guns. :cool: Using that argument to defend the 1911 doesn't really speak too highly of the 1911 to begin with...

[YVK]

Every single 1911 I've seen in a course has gone down or at the very least choked. Even the Les Baer and a completely custom build.
.

That is unfortunate but not necessarily reflective. I've taken a number of classes with 1911 and have not had mine choke. I've seen more 1911s go through classes without issues that with. Part of it could be a selection bias.

To take this out of "he said, she said" realm: first AFHF class I took had 4 1911s for the duration of the class, one choked, three didn't. The one that did choke was a design with significant deviations from the original. Second AFHF class I took had 2 1911s, both used for 1/2 class and changed due to user preferences. No malfunctions either. Since Todd taught those classes, he is my witness.

My full custom 1911 to the date (4222 rounds) is yet to suffer a stoppage.

My second 1911 has had 5 malfunctions in 3600 rounds. At a first glance, far from stellar. However, given the fact that it has a bushing fit for a different gun, a feed ramp that has been refinished and but not polished after, a drop-in ignition set and beavertail, trigger and thumb safety fit by myself without proper training or teaching, I find it quite reassuring that the gun set up against any common sense or recommendations for a duty- ready 1911 maintains 99.8% reliability across several thousand rounds. For those who read the above description and have "wtf" moment: this is my "learn the platform" gun, as well as a hands-on experiment on a user-level maintenance of a 1911 by an untrained user.

[TGS]

Part of it could be a selection bias.

Most definitely!

The majority of them were Kimbers and other lower-grade 1911's...only 4 custom or premium brands, exactly. I've also had a lot lower volume of experience with 1911's than a lot of guys here.

Still, the fact that there is a possibility of a selection bias speaks volumes as to the problems with the platform.....and the fact that a $1000 gun isn't considered premium, or even expected to be reliable......

Saying "well no shit there's problems with the guns, it's a Kimber and not a $3000 from a good maker," is an argument that shits all over the 1911 to begin with in order to defend it. It shouldn't take that in order to make a reliable gun....so there's obviously a flaw, or flaws, that requires the one-off expertise of a superlative gunsmith to make it a decent service pistol.

Not my cup of tea. But this, however: GrayGuns Custom SIG P210 Duty Pistol (http://grayguns.com/custom-gunsmithwork-sig-sauer-p210-duty-gun/) :cool:
Now that's something I'd pay a lot of money for if surgical precision of the weapon was something I prioritized as #1....

[LittleLebowski]

That is unfortunate but not necessarily reflective. I've taken a number of classes with 1911 and have not had mine choke. I've seen more 1911s go through classes without issues that with. Part of it could be a selection bias.

To take this out of "he said, she said" realm: first AFHF class I took had 4 1911s for the duration of the class, one choked, three didn't. The one that did choke was a design with significant deviations from the original. Second AFHF class I took had 2 1911s, both used for 1/2 class and changed due to user preferences. No malfunctions either. Since Todd taught those classes, he is my witness.

My full custom 1911 to the date (4222 rounds) is yet to suffer a stoppage.

My second 1911 has had 5 malfunctions in 3600 rounds. At a first glance, far from stellar. However, given the fact that it has a bushing fit for a different gun, a feed ramp that has been refinished and but not polished after, a drop-in ignition set and beavertail, trigger and thumb safety fit by myself without proper training or teaching, I find it quite reassuring that the gun set up against any common sense or recommendations for a duty- ready 1911 maintains 99.8% reliability across several thousand rounds. For those who read the above description and have "wtf" moment: this is my "learn the platform" gun, as well as a hands-on experiment on a user-level maintenance of a 1911 by an untrained user.

How much are you cleaning and doing maintenance on these beasties and how much did they run you?

[YVK]

Saying "well no shit there's problems with the guns, it's a Kimber and not a $3000 from a good maker," is an argument that shits all over the 1911 to begin with in order to defend it. It shouldn't take that in order to make a reliable gun....so there's obviously a flaw, or flaws, that requires the one-off expertise of a superlative gunsmith to make it a decent service pistol. ....

That is an exagerration. It doesn't take two K over the price of a base gun to make 1911 reliable, I've mentioned this before. Basic reliability packages go for 75 - 100 bucks; you can get a pretty comprehensive reliability tune for 300. Similarly, you don't need a rockstar gunsmith, you need somebody who understands the pistol and has good work ethics. This doesn't negate the fact that 1911 is clearly a more expensive proposition than Glock, but getting a reliable 1911 is within a reach of most polymer gun owners. The fact that there are many polymer gun owners in this thread who owned or still own a 1911 is a proof to that.

[YVK]

How much are you cleaning and doing maintenance on these beasties and how much did they run you?

The full custom is one-off build, there is stuff on it that's totally unnecessary, pull all stops creation so the price is reflective of that, not practical cost. The learning platform Colt was about 800 base, 200 pro work (lowering the port, tunning extractor), small parts that I dropped in or fit 200 maybe; then there were the sights but that's the same for 1911 or Gs or HK.

Maintenance: full strip for maintenance purposes only about 1500-2000, don't really count. Removing slide/barrel for a wipe and lube - probably every 500 hundred; I do the extractor tension check at the same time. Field expedient lube without slide removal - after each range trip. I tend to use grease on rails to prevent lubricant running away. 1911 needing to be wet is a common knowledge
Every 18 months or so I do a big mag rebuild. I keep an Excel spreadsheet with info, mostly feed lip spread. If they go wide, I trash them, those that are still good get new springs and/or followers.

[TGS]

That is an exagerration. It doesn't take two K over the price of a base gun to make 1911 reliable, I've mentioned this before. Basic reliability packages go for 75 - 100 bucks; you can get a pretty comprehensive reliability tune for 300. Similarly, you don't need a rockstar gunsmith, you need somebody who understands the pistol and has good work ethics. This doesn't negate the fact that 1911 is clearly a more expensive proposition than Glock, but getting a reliable 1911 is within a reach of most polymer gun owners. The fact that there are many polymer gun owners in this thread who owned or still own a 1911 is a proof to that.

The fact the platform is expected to need a reliability tune isn't speaking so well for the platform. See what I mean? Every argument I've heard defending the 1911 is like a gun version of The Human Centipede. It has to shit on itself in order to keep itself alive and viable.

[FotoTomas]

I would like to add my two cents...

My first "combat" pistol and "combat" pistol training came from the Army back when Ho Chi Minh City was named Saigon. The rack grade pistols I was issued in MP school at Ft. Gordan and the 8th Army arms room in Seoul Korea were rattletraps and 100% reliable with the issued ball ammo. I was blessed with access to a pistol range and took advantage of my situation by putting a bunch of commercial rounds purchased at the Rod & Gun club through whichever M1911A1 I was issued for the day. We did not have assigned pistols in my units. True this was not an activity I was supposed to do with the duty pistol but I was one happy soldier and had NO problems with any of the issued pistols. Officially we "qualified" once a year. I was shooting 50 rounds a week for fun when on patrol and the gun club range was in my patrol area. Life was good!

Because I was familiar with and a fan of the design I often carried a M1911A1 on duty as a small town cop. The several GI surplus pistols I owned were 100% with ball, Remington JHP and my handloads using a 225 grain roundnose lead bullet thrown from an eight cavity Hensly and Gibbs mold. On the other hand there were issues with the AMT Hardballer, Randall, and several others including commercial Colts. My shooting partner said based on my experience with commercial 1911's he observed that I could make a brick malfunction.

I moved on and spent more time with my Revolvers, S&W autos and Berettas.

Today I have a surplus M1911A1 just like the old Army pistol and it has been a 100% pistol using factory ball and factory spec reloads. If I had nothing else I would carry it with confidence since I know it well. Given a choice... my Beretta, SIG or GLOCK would get the nod. The fancy 1000 dollar plus 1911's simply do not appeal to me. It is a dated design that requires more effort than I believe it is worth.

That is "MY" opinion and worth what you paid for it. :)

[YVK]

The fact the platform is expected to need a reliability tune isn't speaking so well for the platform. See what I mean? .

Take a look at this thread http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=252140. This is a goodwill effort of gun owners like you and I to find out how reliable 1911 is out of the box. You can criticize the quality of data, small round count they are asking about etc, but expectation that a 1911, especially from a quality maker, will need a reliability tune, is yet another exaggeration.

Higher chance of reliability tune than modern pistols? Yes, maybe...

Take a look at the Apex Tactical webpage and find an item called "Failure-Resistant Extractor". Then, with the same amount of criticism and skepticism that you approach a 1911, ask what are the expectations here if a small upstart company has decided to invest time and money on R&D of a decidedly reliability upgrade? My personal experience is that their expectations of need should be high and right on money: my M&P threw brass in my face, so now I have that part installed, at the price exactly the same as a good 1911 extractor. Of course, I am basing my opinion on a sample size of one, but, since I often see people base their personal opinions on 1911s based on the same sample sizes or no personal experience at all, I think I am OK here.

Then, take a look at the White Sound webpage and find an item called "HRED". Then, with the same amount of criticism and skepticism that you approach a 1911, ask what are the expectations here if a small upstart company has decided to invest time and money...well, you've got it.
I tell you, I have a Gen 4 G17, I am waiting for it to pass 500 rounds trouble-free before I spend money on sights - seriously, ask GJM or SecondsCount.

We talked about selection bias, there are many others - recall, reporting, ascertainment...You can believe that 1911 won't run worth a damn out of the box, I think most quality brands will be OK.

Finally, one more thought. 1911 doesn't run - it usually doesn't run right off the bat. Unless frame and slide are way off, fixing a 1911 is formulaic - read Kunhausen, get stuff in spec. You have multiple vendors of quality parts and multiple work providers. Modern pistol doesn't run - fixing it is nearly voodoo; replace recoil assembly - maybe yes, maybe know, replace extractor with version # 55 non-dimpled or what have you, get a HRED, get a new ejector, maybe it is a frame flex. True answer - nobody has a clue, go find a pre-2010, wait for Apex to fix accuracy issues, learn to shoot TDA or LEM...
Current plastic gun offerings have been one of the best arguments for an antiquated, overweight but well-known commodity that is a 1911.

[jmjames]

Here's a trainer claiming that less than 10% of the 1911's in his 2 day class make it through. His point is that the 3" SC's are horrid (he's offering full refund of tuition + ammo to anyone getting through a class problem free with a 3" SC 1911), but in the text at the end he claims a less than 10% success rate for 1911's in his classes.

Now, it's possible that his clients don't maintain or lubricate their guns properly. That may be. I just found this interesting (stumbled across it on Facebook just a moment ago... not like I was cruising the Internet looking for a video to "prove a point" or anything).

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150880074827485

J.Ja

[YVK]

Here's a trainer claiming that less than 10% of the 1911's in his 2 day class make it through. His point is that the 3" SC's are horrid (he's offering full refund of tuition + ammo to anyone getting through a class problem free with a 3" SC 1911), but in the text at the end he claims a less than 10% success rate for 1911's in his classes.

J.Ja

Anybody who ventures to take a two day class with a 3" 1911 should be charged double tuition for stupidity.

I owned a great example of what I consider a mild custom - reworked 4 inch Kimber pre-series II, conventional extractor, no Schwartz safety. I thought it was a great example of "practical" 1911 - barrel, slide and frame were great "as is", no super-tight fit - just right, critical parts replaced, non-critical left as is even if MIM, reliability tune and great ergo rework. Bought minimally used for $2K in 2006 I think. The 4 inch format required recoil spring change every 750 rounds; I actually shot it till I got feeding malfunctions to tease that service interval out. I took to my first pistol class and it did just that - had one malfunction towards the end of approximately 1000 round class. One needs to know what short format 1911s are and aren't capable of. Mr. Pincus is not taking much of a risk with his offer.

[jmjames]

Anybody who ventures to take a two day class with a 3" 1911 should be charged double tuition for stupidity.

I owned a great example of what I consider a mild custom - reworked 4 inch Kimber pre-series II, conventional extractor, no Schwartz safety. I thought it was a great example of "practical" 1911 - barrel, slide and frame were great "as is", no super-tight fit - just right, critical parts replaced, non-critical left as is even if MIM, reliability tune and great ergo rework. Bought minimally used for $2K in 2006 I think. The 4 inch format required recoil spring change every 750 rounds; I actually shot it till I got feeding malfunctions to tease that service interval out. I took to my first pistol class and it did just that - had one malfunction towards the end of approximately 1000 round class. One needs to know what short format 1911s are and aren't capable of. Mr. Pincus is not taking much of a risk with his offer.

Everything I've read about the < 5" 1911's confirms that it's not a big risk.

I thought the much more interesting (and relevant to this topic) was the mention that less than 10% of 1911's *on the whole* make it through his class. Then again, a 2 day class with 500 - 1000 rounds of shooting, with a gun that wasn't really lubed well to begin with (or even one that just didn't get a re-lube) will be an issue, particularly as (as all seem to agree on in this thread), 1911's like to be wet. Depending on his target audience, it would not be surprising to find out that many, if not most of those failures come back to lack of lube and nothing more.

J.Ja

[Robinson]

Hopefully I'll be adding a post to the 2K challenge thread in the next few weeks describing how my 9mm 1911 has performed. It won't mean much in the big picture, but it's another data point. I'm at 1,670 rounds currently with zero stoppages, malfunctions, etc... -- no cleaning or lube since right before I started.

The test certainly won't lead me to make any broad claims about the platform either way.

[LittleLebowski]

Hopefully I'll be adding a post to the 2K challenge thread in the next few weeks describing how my 9mm 1911 has performed. It won't mean much in the big picture, but it's another data point. I'm at 1,670 rounds currently with zero stoppages, malfunctions, etc... -- no cleaning or lube since right before I started.

The test certainly won't lead me to make any broad claims about the platform either way.

That's pretty impressive; looking forward to reading it.

[LittleLebowski]

Anybody who ventures to take a two day class with a 3" 1911 should be charged double tuition for stupidity.

I owned a great example of what I consider a mild custom - reworked 4 inch Kimber pre-series II, conventional extractor, no Schwartz safety. I thought it was a great example of "practical" 1911 - barrel, slide and frame were great "as is", no super-tight fit - just right, critical parts replaced, non-critical left as is even if MIM, reliability tune and great ergo rework. Bought minimally used for $2K in 2006 I think. The 4 inch format required recoil spring change every 750 rounds; I actually shot it till I got feeding malfunctions to tease that service interval out. I took to my first pistol class and it did just that - had one malfunction towards the end of approximately 1000 round class. One needs to know what short format 1911s are and aren't capable of. Mr. Pincus is not taking much of a risk with his offer.

Wow, I had no idea my Series I Pro Carry was worth that much.

[YVK]

It was Kimber Compact, with a base price of 700-800 I think. The rest of it was for parts, install, sights, reliability, whatever was needed to make it duty-ready, mild dehorn plus proprietary fronstrap/MSH treatment (the most expensive item on the menu) and wear-resistant re-finish. With all that, I felt it was exactly "everything you need, nothing you don't" for me, at a price appreciably lower than generically recommended off-the-shelf (Springer Pro) option.

Personal/"sentimental" reasons aside, you can probably get a decent money for your Pro Carry, pre-series II Kimbers are valued.

[TCinVA]

I've an extensive collection of Wilsons, Baers, Nighthawks and (a single) Brown. Why is it that none of my guns exhibit the significant failure rate? What would you offer as a "success" rate for 1911s? 10%? 50%


Assuming you're actually shooting them all fairly extensively, then you're still dealing with a relatively small sample size. Take Nighthawk as an example. Some of their guns work great. Then again, I've seen some of their guns work not so great. As a matter of fact, I was actually present when somebody who had their name on a series of guns from Nighthawk went on a rant about how they deviated from an accepted spec and how that led to reliability problems with some of the guns. I know of an individual who purchased one of those guns, had problems with it, and sent it to the guy whose name was on the gun to get it sorted out and it was sorted out and the gun worked after it was addressed.

If you poke around on Lightfighter you can find a thread where some of that gets talked about....

Your Nighthawk worked...other gentlemen I know spent rude money on Nighthawks that were problems right out of the box. And I could substitute practically any other 1911 maker in for Nighthawk and it would be the same story. I've talked with lots of happy Baer owners. I'm a happy Baer owner. I've also talked with people who wouldn't piss Baer out if he was on fire because of guns that didn't work right and issues getting them fixed. I've talked with people who have gone down the path of attempting legal action against a 1911 makers that are regarded fairly well because of expensive guns that don't run.

What's the failure rate? Depends on how you want to quantify "failure". If you mean how many 1911's I've seen in person working (or not working, as the case may be) on the range that had some sort of non-ammo related issue (because bulk FMJ ammo isn't spectacularly reliable in anything these days) either traceable to simple issues like lack of lubrication or more serious issues like a gun that basically ended up being a giant ball of expensive tolerance stack, then I've seen precisely one specimen that didn't have a problem.

That one specimen was a gun that was built from the frame up by Larry Vickers, back when he was primarily known to the world as a 1911 smith.

All the rest of them experienced problems of one sort or another. Some were made happy by using different magazines or magazine springs. Some were made happy by tweaking the internals in one form or another. Some simply needed to be properly lubricated.

Just to give you some clue of how this works, I was at a 1911 specific class run by Vickers a few years ago where everybody showed up with a 1911. Before lunch on the first day I was the only student who hadn't experienced some sort of reliability problem...and even then my gun turned out to need a bit of tweaking, including retensioning the extractor because, surprise surprise, after years of use and tens of thousands of rounds down the pipe it was not properly holding on to the case. I've done a writeup of the class that's googleable and that shows other folks who were there with their expensive guns reporting the same problems I mentioned...so it's not like I'm making any of this up.

That is but one class out of a bunch I've attended over the years where I've seen 1911's on the line. Probably the most interesting failure I've seen is when I saw the slide/barrel assembly of a customized Colt Gold Cup launch downrange during someone's run of a bill drill because the slide stop had apparently given up the ghost and finally worked loose during an attempt at a bill drill during a pistol class at Blackwater some years ago. Seeing that and the resulting look on the owner's face is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen anywhere. In a number of years of doing this training thing I've encountered lots of 1911s because they were (and still are) the cool guy guns of choice. Now I've seen plenty of guns of all brands and configurations break, but the most sensitive have been the 1911 (of various brands) and the Browning Hi-Power...although I've only seen a handful of Hi-Powers on the range.

When I pair that firsthand observation over more than a decade of doing this stuff with the knowledge gained from running one seriously for several years, networking with people online about their trials and tribulations with various incarnations of 1911, and knowledge gained about how the 1911 has performed as an issue sidearm to various military and law enforcement units, and input from people who have forgotten more about 1911's than I'll ever know...including some people who have been teaching on the 1911 since Cooper started Gunsite or the guy who actually has an American Pistolsmith's Guild award...

...well, I'm thinking I've got a pretty good read on the 1911, warts and all.




So, if I'm reading this correctly, you and LL suggest not using a 1911 based on:
1. Cost
2. Reliability
3. Intensity/sophistication of maintenance. I'll lump parts fitting into here.


Those are it's main vulnerabilities, yes. I advise people who are looking for a tool to reliably launch bullets to avoid the 1911 because they have a better shot at getting a better tool right from the getgo with other options on the market. 1911 enthusiasts don't ask those types of questions because their mind is already made up. If somebody knows the 1911 well enough to spot a gun that has an improperly done barrel throat and feed ramp, then they're probably aware of what they're in for. The people whose knowledge about 1911's is limited to drooling over the porn-quality layouts in American Handgunner that are looking for a place to start with a tool meant primarily for personal defense are barking up a potentially very expensive and counter-productive tree.

I know, I know....who buys a $2,000.00 handgun they can't afford to shoot or train with? Well, quite a few people I can cite personally, actually. And they wanted that $2,000.00 handgun because they got the idea that it was more awesomer than a $500.00 Glock at putting holes in bad people...which is nonsense.



I do wish I could speak with some authority on the MEU, et al., 1911s in terms of maintenance, service life, and so on. However, without some verification (trust but verify!), such an argument point is irrelevant.


The fact that you may not be able to easily verify the information from a personal source is not the same thing as holding that the information is not verifiable. I have absolutely zero problem with the credibility of the reports from MEU, or Delta, or LAPD SWAT, or a number of other groups who have famously use 1911's. While it would be nice if all the information existed in a spreadsheet based on numbers to a .05 level of significance that was publicly available, that isn't how the gun world works.

When you compare various sources of information and keep coming up with a consistent answer, it's about as good as it's ever going to get.



TC - more directly at your training experience. I would suspect a great many of those you see fail with their NH have not, until they arrived at your class, ever tried to run their 1911 at speed.


As an example, the guys who showed up at the aforementioned Vickers course all showed up with guns they thought were reliable. None of them were inexperienced, and none of them were firing their first shots through the weapons they brought, to the best of my recollection. Darn near every one of them left the range at some point going "That's never happened before." Generally the people who show up to a course with a 1911 are the more sophisticated shooter types...because it's the enthusiast that's going to spend the money on the 1911 and show up to a class where he'll dump another bunch of $$$ in .45 ACP ammo to run through it.



Who would show up to a class with a 1911 that didn't run 100%?


And how, exactly, do they know it doesn't run 100%? I'll say it again: If you show up to a training course that has more than 400 rounds downrange I guarantee you will hear the words "That's never happened before" uttered before the course is over, regardless of what equipment people are using. People are generally showing up with equipment they think is good to go because...and this is the key bit...they've used the stuff a fair bit before showing up to the class, generally...and all of a sudden they're confronting problems they've never encountered before.

Example:

I was in a class a few years ago where a police officer showed up running his duty weapon. This is a weapon he had been carrying for years, that he had to qualify with at least 2 times a year on timed courses of fire with. All with no problems. Then he shows up at the course and while attempting to shoot the Hackathorn standards he is dropping the mag from the gun when he attempts to grip the weapon. I'm standing behind him watching him shoot and I see the mag drop to the ground as he establishes his weak hand grip on the gun. He pulls the trigger, gets one bang, and then gets a click. Tap-rack-CLICK. He attempts a more complex clear and is utterly dumbfounded when he sees that there's no mag in the gun.

First words out of his mouth once the drill was over?

"That's never happened before."

Yet it did happen. In front of witnesses. And it kept happening, as he had several more unintentional jettisons of the ammunition feeding device before the day was out. So the guy shows up with a weapon he's trained with in department mandated training, that he's qualed with at least twice a year for a number of years prior...that he's actually used on the street to defend himself...and yet one day in one training course he experiences brand new problems that were so disconcerting he sidelined that gun and never carried it again.

The idea that these people are experiencing problems with 1911's because they're just rushing out, buying a gun, and never bothering to use it until they show up to a training course is incorrect. I'm not a professional trainer, but ask the guys who are: Problems manifest. In fact, some trainers almost seem to be able to summon them at will. I've watched instructors point at a piece of a student's gear that had been working just fine prior and say "This is probably going to cause problem X." and within 60 seconds it happens. I actually asked how many virgins he had to sacrifice to gain that sort of power.



Because if they are not - that is suggestive.


Right...you had yours refinished. Why did you have your gun refinished? Because you're a 1911 guy. I get it. I'm a 1911 guy, too. And every time I performed a one handed malfunction drill in a class with my baby a part of my brain was inconsolable because I was slamming my precious baby against my belt buckle and that was absolute hell on the bluing. I cared about how it looked, and I cared about how protective the finish was, about even the possibility of corrosion....

Been there. Done that.

Thus it's rather difficult to assess how much use a 1911 has had by the finish because...1911 guys are highly likely to refinish their guns when they get some wear on them. I mean, you're talking to a dude who has a hard chromed Beretta 92. Why? Because I bought it used and unloved and proceeded to beat a lot more of the finish off of it in the process of learning to use it reasonably. Perfectly functional, but the sight of bare metal peeking through the black drove me nuts.

The folks I've seen in classes packing 1911's have, for the most part, been 1911 enthusiasts. People who carefully weighed their purchase, and who did all the things you're supposed to do like feeding it the right ammo and with the right mags, going through the break-in period, etc. Sure, there has been the one or two who bought a Nighthawk and fed it with Wolf ammo through Gunshow Special magazines of indeterminate origin, but the majority were ticking all the proper 1911 boxes and still had problems. Some major, some minor.


Take a look at the Apex Tactical webpage and find an item called "Failure-Resistant Extractor". Then, with the same amount of criticism and skepticism that you approach a 1911, ask what are the expectations here if a small upstart company has decided to invest time and money on R&D of a decidedly reliability upgrade? My personal experience is that their expectations of need should be high and right on money: my M&P threw brass in my face, so now I have that part installed, at the price exactly the same as a good 1911 extractor. Of course, I am basing my opinion on a sample size of one, but, since I often see people base their personal opinions on 1911s based on the same sample sizes or no personal experience at all, I think I am OK here.

Then, take a look at the White Sound webpage and find an item called "HRED". Then, with the same amount of criticism and skepticism that you approach a 1911, ask what are the expectations here if a small upstart company has decided to invest time and money...well, you've got it.

I tell you, I have a Gen 4 G17, I am waiting for it to pass 500 rounds trouble-free before I spend money on sights - seriously, ask GJM or SecondsCount.


You've been here long enough that you've seen the discussions and a good many of us have been non-plussed at the idea of using customers as R&D. It's ridiculous that weapons which used to define out of the box reliability have been so thoroughly hashed up that they've actually retrograded to the point of being the same level of risk as everything else. I can't remember specifically who, but one of the members of staff was talking about wanting a 9mm 1911 some months ago while we were at a Culpepper gathering and the last comment of the conversation was something like "Well it's probably no more likely to have a problem than a 4th gen Glock 19."

...and son of a gun, he has a point.

[TGS]

I can't remember specifically who, but one of the members of staff was talking about wanting a 9mm 1911 some months ago while we were at a Culpepper gathering

Todd's new endurance pistol? :D

[LittleLebowski]

Todd's new endurance pistol? :D

Nah, he's going with the FN 5.7 :D

[JV_]

I can't remember specifically who, but one of the members of staff was talking about wanting a 9mm 1911 some months ago while we were at a Culpepper gathering and the last comment of the conversation was something like "Well it's probably no more likely to have a problem than a 4th gen Glock 19."

...and son of a gun, he has a point.

That'd be me :)

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?311-9mm-1911

And I still want one, but I'll go for an STI Eagle/Edge 2011 if I make the jump.

[Odin Bravo One]

Sweet,

if you remember who it was TC, let me know.........I have two I can part with, and need to fund another machinegun before the baby gets here and I get put in the MG penalty box for 18 years.

[JDM]

Sweet,

if you remember who it was TC, let me know.........I have two I can part with, and need to fund another machinegun before the baby gets here and I get put in the MG penalty box for 18 years.

Hilarious.

[BLR]

Assuming you're actually shooting them all fairly extensively, then you're still dealing with a relatively small sample size. Take Nighthawk as an example. Some of their guns work great. Then again, I've seen some of their guns work not so great. As a matter of fact, I was actually present when somebody who had their name on a series of guns from Nighthawk went on a rant about how they deviated from an accepted spec and how that led to reliability problems with some of the guns. I know of an individual who purchased one of those guns, had problems with it, and sent it to the guy whose name was on the gun to get it sorted out and it was sorted out and the gun worked after it was addressed.

Below you say the failure rate you experience should be more than enough to ensure I have a few lemons. That's not the case, but let's progress.

If you poke around on Lightfighter you can find a thread where some of that gets talked about....

Your Nighthawk worked...other gentlemen I know spent rude money on Nighthawks that were problems right out of the box. And I could substitute practically any other 1911 maker in for Nighthawk and it would be the same story. I've talked with lots of happy Baer owners. I'm a happy Baer owner. I've also talked with people who wouldn't piss Baer out if he was on fire because of guns that didn't work right and issues getting them fixed. I've talked with people who have gone down the path of attempting legal action against a 1911 makers that are regarded fairly well because of expensive guns that don't run.

What's the failure rate? Depends on how you want to quantify "failure". If you mean how many 1911's I've seen in person working (or not working, as the case may be) on the range that had some sort of non-ammo related issue (because bulk FMJ ammo isn't spectacularly reliable in anything these days) either traceable to simple issues like lack of lubrication or more serious issues like a gun that basically ended up being a giant ball of expensive tolerance stack, then I've seen precisely one specimen that didn't have a problem.

Wow. I can only wonder why our experiences differ so radically. But at any rate, it is what it is.

That one specimen was a gun that was built from the frame up by Larry Vickers, back when he was primarily known to the world as a 1911 smith.

All the rest of them experienced problems of one sort or another. Some were made happy by using different magazines or magazine springs. Some were made happy by tweaking the internals in one form or another. Some simply needed to be properly lubricated.

Just to give you some clue of how this works, I was at a 1911 specific class run by Vickers a few years ago where everybody showed up with a 1911. Before lunch on the first day I was the only student who hadn't experienced some sort of reliability problem...and even then my gun turned out to need a bit of tweaking, including retensioning the extractor because, surprise surprise, after years of use and tens of thousands of rounds down the pipe it was not properly holding on to the case. I've done a writeup of the class that's googleable and that shows other folks who were there with their expensive guns reporting the same problems I mentioned...so it's not like I'm making any of this up.

If I insinuated that you were making it up, I apologize. Far from it. If you see the gun choke, that's all there is too it. But we are glossing over the point I was trying to make. You in one breath say, yes, if you modify a Glock, you are modifying its inherent reliability. Then in the next breath, you say the same thing in the 1911 is a design flaw (I'm interpreting some here, so correct me if I am wrong).

That is but one class out of a bunch I've attended over the years where I've seen 1911's on the line. Probably the most interesting failure I've seen is when I saw the slide/barrel assembly of a customized Colt Gold Cup launch downrange during someone's run of a bill drill because the slide stop had apparently given up the ghost and finally worked loose during an attempt at a bill drill during a pistol class at Blackwater some years ago. Seeing that and the resulting look on the owner's face is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen anywhere. In a number of years of doing this training thing I've encountered lots of 1911s because they were (and still are) the cool guy guns of choice. Now I've seen plenty of guns of all brands and configurations break, but the most sensitive have been the 1911 (of various brands) and the Browning Hi-Power...although I've only seen a handful of Hi-Powers on the range.

When I pair that firsthand observation over more than a decade of doing this stuff with the knowledge gained from running one seriously for several years, networking with people online about their trials and tribulations with various incarnations of 1911, and knowledge gained about how the 1911 has performed as an issue sidearm to various military and law enforcement units, and input from people who have forgotten more about 1911's than I'll ever know...including some people who have been teaching on the 1911 since Cooper started Gunsite or the guy who actually has an American Pistolsmith's Guild award...

...well, I'm thinking I've got a pretty good read on the 1911, warts and all.

I would suggest it is a read that is somewhat negatively colored. But sure, mine is optimistic so I won't cast stones.




Those are it's main vulnerabilities, yes. I advise people who are looking for a tool to reliably launch bullets to avoid the 1911 because they have a better shot at getting a better tool right from the getgo with other options on the market. 1911 enthusiasts don't ask those types of questions because their mind is already made up. If somebody knows the 1911 well enough to spot a gun that has an improperly done barrel throat and feed ramp, then they're probably aware of what they're in for. The people whose knowledge about 1911's is limited to drooling over the porn-quality layouts in American Handgunner that are looking for a place to start with a tool meant primarily for personal defense are barking up a potentially very expensive and counter-productive tree.

I know, I know....who buys a $2,000.00 handgun they can't afford to shoot or train with? Well, quite a few people I can cite personally, actually. And they wanted that $2,000.00 handgun because they got the idea that it was more awesomer than a $500.00 Glock at putting holes in bad people...which is nonsense.

Umm. Ok.



The fact that you may not be able to easily verify the information from a personal source is not the same thing as holding that the information is not verifiable. I have absolutely zero problem with the credibility of the reports from MEU, or Delta, or LAPD SWAT, or a number of other groups who have famously use 1911's. While it would be nice if all the information existed in a spreadsheet based on numbers to a .05 level of significance that was publicly available, that isn't how the gun world works.

Not what I asked for. Do you have any sources though? I have a friend on another forum in MEU, who happens to be a 1911 guy, that loves the MEU 1911. Not to mention, uses his Baers and Wilson quite aggressively. "Reports" tend to push an agenda. Especially if they are conveyed by people with an axe to grind.

When you compare various sources of information and keep coming up with a consistent answer, it's about as good as it's ever going to get.

I'd love to do just that. Can you point me in that direction please?

As an example, the guys who showed up at the aforementioned Vickers course all showed up with guns they thought were reliable. None of them were inexperienced, and none of them were firing their first shots through the weapons they brought, to the best of my recollection. Darn near every one of them left the range at some point going "That's never happened before." Generally the people who show up to a course with a 1911 are the more sophisticated shooter types...because it's the enthusiast that's going to spend the money on the 1911 and show up to a class where he'll dump another bunch of $$$ in .45 ACP ammo to run through it.

I will suggest this - do they practice speed loads with their gun and use mags? This may be overly complected for some, but if you train or compete you will be doing everything you will do in a class. That is speed loads, one hand operation, etc. Will carry this line of thought further down in the conversation.

And how, exactly, do they know it doesn't run 100%? I'll say it again: If you show up to a training course that has more than 400 rounds downrange I guarantee you will hear the words "That's never happened before" uttered before the course is over, regardless of what equipment people are using. People are generally showing up with equipment they think is good to go because...and this is the key bit...they've used the stuff a fair bit before showing up to the class, generally...and all of a sudden they're confronting problems they've never encountered before.

Well, they will exactly know because that won't be the first time the do a drill under pressure. I would bet you spend time practicing one hand reloads, weak hand draws, speed loads, barricades, and the sort all the time. How many showed up at the class with their $3k whatever and were legitimately training with the gun. I have a friend that "wouldn't piss the fire off a Baer" who was like clock work with failures to feed. Without fail, when he was on the clock, he 1 out of 5 times or so wouldn't seat the mag fully. That wasn't a gun problem as much as a training/practice problem. He stopped babying the gun, and it subsequently started running correctly. People have a tendency to baby the expensive guns. Hence, in my opinion, you have a greater incidence of "failures" in the more expensive ones. Glock guns with Glock mags don't have such compatibility issues.

Example:

I was in a class a few years ago where a police officer showed up running his duty weapon. This is a weapon he had been carrying for years, that he had to qualify with at least 2 times a year on timed courses of fire with. All with no problems. Then he shows up at the course and while attempting to shoot the Hackathorn standards he is dropping the mag from the gun when he attempts to grip the weapon. I'm standing behind him watching him shoot and I see the mag drop to the ground as he establishes his weak hand grip on the gun. He pulls the trigger, gets one bang, and then gets a click. Tap-rack-CLICK. He attempts a more complex clear and is utterly dumbfounded when he sees that there's no mag in the gun.

See the above comment.

First words out of his mouth once the drill was over?

Did he compete with the gun? I can walk to the range with a gun that has a plurality of issues that won't manifest themselves until the gun is run at speed. This is not "inherent" to the 1911, but in large part due to the wide variance of vendors "individuality."

"That's never happened before."

Yet it did happen. In front of witnesses. And it kept happening, as he had several more unintentional jettisons of the ammunition feeding device before the day was out. So the guy shows up with a weapon he's trained with in department mandated training, that he's qualed with at least twice a year for a number of years prior...that he's actually used on the street to defend himself...and yet one day in one training course he experiences brand new problems that were so disconcerting he sidelined that gun and never carried it again.

In my admittedly limited experience, I find competition is a wonderful tool to determine not only proficiency, but working order. Nothing like adrenaline to help you miss a mag change.

The idea that these people are experiencing problems with 1911's because they're just rushing out, buying a gun, and never bothering to use it until they show up to a training course is incorrect. I'm not a professional trainer, but ask the guys who are: Problems manifest. In fact, some trainers almost seem to be able to summon them at will. I've watched instructors point at a piece of a student's gear that had been working just fine prior and say "This is probably going to cause problem X." and within 60 seconds it happens. I actually asked how many virgins he had to sacrifice to gain that sort of power.

I would suggest this: when you combine the parts from a wide array of vendors, with people who have not operated the gun against the clock, the margin of error, as you put it, goes down significantly. Coupled with, as you mentioned, the desire to keep their huge investment in good shape, leads to many, many problems.


Right...you had yours refinished. Why did you have your gun refinished? Because you're a 1911 guy. I get it. I'm a 1911 guy, too. And every time I performed a one handed malfunction drill in a class with my baby a part of my brain was inconsolable because I was slamming my precious baby against my belt buckle and that was absolute hell on the bluing. I cared about how it looked, and I cared about how protective the finish was, about even the possibility of corrosion....

Let's face it: the biggest problem of the 1911 is cost. The first round out of my CQB will devalue the gun more than a new Glock costs. Most people can't make peace with that. If you are in that financial place - an expensive 1911 might not be your best bet.

Been there. Done that.

Thus it's rather difficult to assess how much use a 1911 has had by the finish because...1911 guys are highly likely to refinish their guns when they get some wear on them. I mean, you're talking to a dude who has a hard chromed Beretta 92. Why? Because I bought it used and unloved and proceeded to beat a lot more of the finish off of it in the process of learning to use it reasonably. Perfectly functional, but the sight of bare metal peeking through the black drove me nuts.

The folks I've seen in classes packing 1911's have, for the most part, been 1911 enthusiasts. People who carefully weighed their purchase, and who did all the things you're supposed to do like feeding it the right ammo and with the right mags, going through the break-in period, etc. Sure, there has been the one or two who bought a Nighthawk and fed it with Wolf ammo through Gunshow Special magazines of indeterminate origin, but the majority were ticking all the proper 1911 boxes and still had problems. Some major, some minor.



You've been here long enough that you've seen the discussions and a good many of us have been non-plussed at the idea of using customers as R&D. It's ridiculous that weapons which used to define out of the box reliability have been so thoroughly hashed up that they've actually retrograded to the point of being the same level of risk as everything else. I can't remember specifically who, but one of the members of staff was talking about wanting a 9mm 1911 some months ago while we were at a Culpepper gathering and the last comment of the conversation was something like "Well it's probably no more likely to have a problem than a 4th gen Glock 19."

...and son of a gun, he has a point.

All said and done, I'm not trying to talk anyone into a 1911. But I know better than to mindlessly swallow what someone with an obvious axe to grind tells me. When I go to the USPSA meet and compete in SS - peoples guns aren't choking left and right. Simple as that. It comes down to personal preference. Glocks rock. I like the M&P better. But they are not infallible. If the expensive failure rate is as high as suggested, why am I able to watch IDPA/USPSA/Steel/etc matches and see them run so well? See my point?

It really boils down to this - cost, mag capacity and weight. Durability and reliability I will disagree with you on. But we can only go on personal experience and faith. You have more faith in what you see, and I what I see. The reality of the 1911 is that it is not a divinely inspired work or art - but it isn't as bad as you are making it out to be (in my experience). To run a 1911 effectively, you have to know what you have. Baers are notoriously bad about not working right with 47Ds. That is simply a result of the bumper pad on the mag - or the mag catch - or the frame on the Baer. But mixing and matching parts like that will screw up a Glock just as quick. Service grade Glocks will run forever. Match Glocks - well, they fail much more frequently. But so what?

If you or LL said - Well, the weak link is the disconnector. They fail every "X" number of rounds for the MEU pistols. That is a tangible thing we can discuss. Or the main spring fails after "Y" rounds on the LAPD guns. Or the thumb safety after "Z" rounds on the HRT guns. Without specificity, how do you refute the claim? Especially without first hand objective knowledge of the topic. Or even the NHCs you see dying a slow, public death in classes are a result of improper feed angles. That is something we can measure, verify, and critique. Even statements like 1911s don't handle sand as well is something we could intelligently debate and be meaningful and educational for the forum as a whole. A he said she said, with both parties "knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt" that they are right is comical.


Cheers

Bill

[LittleLebowski]

Bill, I mentioned "cult" via PM to you. You feel free to PM me or the staff over my actions.

[JAD]

That'd be me :)

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?311-9mm-1911

And I still want one, but I'll go for an STI Eagle/Edge 2011 if I make the jump.
-- Perhaps because I love 1911s so much, I'd hate to see you do that. Lots of folks run 9x19 major and steel challenge guns with good success, but man do I think the 1911 is a long action platform.

Granted, my current EDC is a 9 bore 1911, but it's got case length on its side.

[TGS]

Not what I asked for. Do you have any sources though? I have a friend on another forum in MEU, who happens to be a 1911 guy, that loves the MEU 1911. Not to mention, uses his Baers and Wilson quite aggressively. "Reports" tend to push an agenda. Especially if they are conveyed by people with an axe to grind.

A friend "in MEU" huh?

That's funny....right about now, anyone who knows what a MEU is may be laughing at you.

"MEU" is not a special unit. MEU means Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is essentially a reinforced battalion sized MAGTF, cruising the oceans looking for a fight. They are also composed of different units each time they deploy.....you aren't assigned to the XX MEU, you're assigned to X Marines, X Battery, X Squadron, ect that partly composes the MEU for this specific deployment. They are not a permanent unit itself.....they are a task force. There are multiple MEU's at any given time....there is not the one and only MEU.

So, your "friend in MEU" is certainly an interesting creature. He may be a friend in a MEU, but that certainly does not make him an authority on pistols. A MEU is composed of cooks, engineers, infantry, pilots, mechanics, tankers and trackers, admin, intelligence, artillery...

[BLR]

A friend "in MEU" huh?

That's funny....right about now, anyone who knows what a MEU is may be laughing at you.

"MEU" is not a special unit. MEU means Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is essentially a reinforced battalion sized MAGTF, cruising the oceans looking for a fight. They are also composed of different units each time they deploy.....you aren't assigned to the XX MEU, you're assigned to X Marines, X Battery, X Squadron, ect that partly composes the MEU for this specific deployment. They are not a permanent unit itself.....they are a task force. There are multiple MEU's at any given time....there is not the one and only MEU.

So, your "friend in MEU" is certainly an interesting creature. He may be a friend in a MEU, but that certainly does not make him an authority on pistols. A MEU is composed of cooks, engineers, infantry, pilots, mechanics, tankers and trackers, admin, intelligence, artillery...

Laugh to your hearts content.

This is the fellow: http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273937
http://1911enthusiast.com/showthread.php/922-USMC-0802-says-quot-hi-quot?highlight=usmc+0802


He is a moderator on our site.

But that is neither here nor there. The point is: reports are conflicting.

[JV_]

-- Perhaps because I love 1911s so much, I'd hate to see you do that.For me, a big part of the decision is about capacity (IMO - 10 seems like a waste in a full size gun), and I think reloads are easier with the tapered mags. I'm sure I could find a better mag well for a single stack gun, but they often add length. If they don't add length, the cult and weld jobs can get expensive, especially if I want a backup gun.

But I'm just dreaming, I'm tight on "gun/fun money".

[TGS]

Laugh to your hearts content.

This is the fellow: http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273937
http://1911enthusiast.com/showthread.php/922-USMC-0802-says-quot-hi-quot?highlight=usmc+0802


He is a moderator on our site.

But that is neither here nor there. The point is: reports are conflicting.

It's nothing against the guy, but I'm wondering how an 0802 is heavily involved with the use and maintenance of MEUSOC 1911's. That's not really the 08 fields' cup of tea. They shoot big boomsticks way bigger than .45....more like 120mm and up.

[LittleLebowski]

I can't imagine an 0802 being issued a MEU SOC pistol. It's not issued to non reconnaissance Marines. I'll have to hear the justification on this but I can't view the link blr posted.

[BLR]

The justification of the reference is to state that there are conflicting reports on the problems. TGS: Please see the last sentence of the post in question. If you venture over to 1911forum.com and look up their (I believe "head") admin, LWMcVay, you will find a counter point to the HRT gun argument. The fellow cited is my one and only, and I'll go so far as to say quasi, link into a MEU. That's it. Reports "conflict," and the reader may choose the one they want to put stock in. LW was there during the HRT gun "trials" and selection process. And is a verifiable authority on the gun and it's application/use with those chaps. Short of hearing it from the actual guys, I'll take what he says with a good measure of respect. When Vickers speaks I listen. Same with Hackathorn, et al. I evaluate what is said, test it myself, and accept it or reject it. But I don't automatically take it as holy gospel and assimilate into the mass.

Before attacking the validity of an artillery man's opinion, I might suggest it is (as dubious as it is) the only cited "report" thus far. Though let me be absolutely clear, I do not in any way shape or form speak for the man. As you can see, he's been out of country for nearing 3 years and basically incommunicado. That said, his TRS is a case study in durability, etc of the design/platform. He has 3 that run similarly. I wouldn't go so far as to discount his 1911 experience out of hand. Is it gospel? No, of course not. I never said it was. Simply pointing to a gun celebrity (Vickers to Costa) and expecting that to be an argument ender is more school yard tactics than adults with a common goal discussing a topic.

The reason I come back to this thread is that I am hoping for more than broad sweeping (and emotional) statements concerning the 1911 with the expectation that I will simply take them at face value and agree. Nothing said as of yet is by any stretch of the definition unequivocal. Reports at odds. Experience at odds. And so on. Not once has the argument been made effectively: here is what is wrong, here is how it should be, and (most importantly) why. For example: Beavertails are a valuable and well thought out modification to the -A1; *points to picture of bloody web of hand*; and here is how you fix it *points to S&A (or whomever) grip safety. "1911s break all the time" isn't a logical, valid, or mature argument. You don't see me running around making the Glock Kaboom argument because it's asinine. But I could, then cite some examples, and leave you guys running around refuting it, calling me names, and again, no progress is made.

Hopefully you see my point.

[BLR]

For example - if someone were to take the stance that the gun is overly complicated. Then point to the barrel link and say: "take a page from the 3rd Gen Smiths and go to that design." It would be difficult to argue, and I for one wouldn't argue the point.

But for all 16 pages, not mentioned once. Only broad sweeping generalities that are not easily substantiated.

[F-Trooper05]

All I know is that whenever I see a 1911 show up to a class I'm attending I curse under my breath and prepare for a lot of standing around while the instructor spends half his time un-f***ing said shooter's gun.

Blr, in this day and age it's hard to take anyone seriously who refuses to acknowledge any reliability concerns with 1911's as a whole over Glocks, HK's and M&P's. Especially when the only 'qualified' instructors who agree with you are still teaching the Weaver stance.

Sorry if it seems like people are jumping on you, but your line of reasoning seems to be on par with your run of the mill gun store employee. It's just bad information, particularly for new shooters.

[peterb]

Not once has the argument been made effectively: here is what is wrong, here is how it should be, and (most importantly) why.

I think that for many people here, it doesn't matter exactly why some guns don't seem to run as well as others. It's enough to know that, in the hands of a wide variety of owners/shooters, with different levels of maintenance, there are brands/designs that are reliable than others.

If there are ways to make certain designs run better, that's fine, but only if the owners do it. You can argue that it's an education problem or an execution problem, but the end result is the same -- a gun that doesn't run well.

I care about designs and tolerances and other such stuff because I'm a geek, but I shouldn't have to. I should be able to buy a gun, take it out of the box, follow the owner's manual and have it run reliably. There's no excuse for anything else.

[Odin Bravo One]

I have probably about $20k tied up into 1911's.

Why?

Because it's my money and I can spend it however I want. I don't much care what anyone else thinks about how that money could have been spent better on a different pistol or caliber or training or whatever. If I choose to drop $9k on a hand built, one of a kind precision rifle, or $17k on a an NFA gun, or $5k on a 1911, it is really irrelevent what someone else thinks about it. When they make my money for me, then I will concern myself with their opinion. Until then, it's mine to do with what I choose.

I figure I have enough experience at this point in my life that I can make my own decisions as to what is an appropriate tool for the task at hand. I don't concern myself with trying to tell someone else what they should be using for a particular circumstance or situation. And I don't concern myself with what somone else thinks of my selection. I have my reasons, and that is good enough for me.

[BLR]

All I know is that whenever I see a 1911 show up to a class I'm attending I curse under my breath and prepare for a lot of standing around while the instructor spends half his time un-f***ing said shooter's gun.

Blr, in this day and age it's hard to take anyone seriously who refuses to acknowledge any reliability concerns with 1911's as a whole over Glocks, HK's and M&P's. Especially when the only 'qualified' instructors who agree with you are still teaching the Weaver stance.

Sorry if it seems like people are jumping on you, but your line of reasoning seems to be on par with your run of the mill gun store employee. It's just bad information, particularly for new shooters.

No, I don't think anyone is jumping on me. Nor do I take it personally when a well reasoned argument is made. I must take exception to your statement that I refuse to acknowledge, as you put it "any" reliability concerns. Quite the opposite - I believe I've been frank and upfront about that. I happily conceded the need for lubrication. And good mags. And so on. I'll go further than what J. Cooper said: Safety and reliability is between the ears.

Though, I think you may have inadvertently touched on something. When I re-read your post (I do this as a matter of course. If you took the time to write it, it's the least I can do before commenting on it), the first sentence stood out. Why exactly does the instructor have to, let's say un-stick, the gun? It would never occur to me to hand my pistol to an instructor or RO to do this. In competition, unless the gun actually breaks, you've just entered into a clearance drill that you should be well practiced for. As a matter of fact, if I have to churn through 2 mags by racking the slide each time, so be it (of course, using the device between my ears as a safety - think SQUIB!!!). Superficially, it doesn't bode well for the "enthusiast of the 1911s break down too" argument to state the instructor has to un-stick the gun multiple times. I wouldn't stop half way through a test at Rogers School to hand the gun to Bill because it jammed. Nor would I want to take a class from someone that deems that appropriate. Now, making an example out of it and teaching the class is different. In other words, and in my opinion, it's a bit unprofessional and tacky to devote class time to "this is why you shouldn't waste money one a 1911," rather I'd like the class to be more educational. Such as "this is why you change mag springs on ALL firearms." But again, that is just my personal, non professional opinion on the matter.

I'll share my limited competition experience. New guy (I was this guy once) show up with Springfield Loaded in tow. Misc mags (w/ weak springs, etc), improper lube (oil, no less), reloads that arent taper crimped (or worse, bulk FMJ that came from the factory that way) and so on, and doesnt make it through stage 1 without problems. Sound like a class yet? Stage 2 is only slightly better after he stops babying the gun and starts slapping mags home, and poured some oil into it prior to starting again. Gets through stage 3. Shakes his head. Goes home. Educates himself, squares away gun, mags, lube, and so on. Goes to next months meet (with a health dose of practice, trial and error and so on) and makes it all 70 some rounds w/o a problem. Now he gains confidence. Gets past the finish blemishes. Learns to draw. Learns sight acquisition and so on. Takes a class on pure marksmanship - taught by a good bullseye competitor. Learns how to shoot (you know, the other have of "move and shoot"). To me, that is a 1911 enthusiast. Buying an expensive gun, running 500 "problem free" rounds through it is not the same thing. I'd be more concerned if TC said his buddy w/ the problematic NH shot 2 seasons of IDPA/IPSC with it prior to a "that's never happened before" fit.


But like I said - this doesn't bother me. If I weren't confident and learned enough to let that roll off my back, I'd really be blowing smoke. :)

[TCinVA]

For example - if someone were to take the stance that the gun is overly complicated. Then point to the barrel link and say: "take a page from the 3rd Gen Smiths and go to that design." It would be difficult to argue, and I for one wouldn't argue the point.

But for all 16 pages, not mentioned once. Only broad sweeping generalities that are not easily substantiated.

I distinctly remember mentioning several pages back the path that a bullet has to travel from the magazine into the chamber on a 1911 pistol. Was that not specific enough?

Fact: Look at where the top round in the mag sits in relation to the chamber on a 1911 versus any of the more modern pistols. The round has to go up at a steep angle, smack into the roof of the chamber, and then relies on the ogive of the bullet sliding along the roof of the chamber as the slide is moving forward to guide the bullet into place. I mentioned that USGI ammo was designed for optimum feeding in the 1911...which means that it was taper crimped and the exact ogive of the bullets used were specified all to try and ensure the best possible chance at reliable feeding.

Take apart any other pistol designed after the 1911 and you'll notice the magazine sits higher in relation to the bore and that there is a much straighter path to the chamber for the top round in the magazine. This is not an accident. JMB, for all his genius, didn't have high speed video. If Gaston Glock had adopted the same method of getting the bullet from the mag into the chamber his gun would have probably proven pretty finicky, too. At the time Browning's approach was better than anyone else's, but engineers working after him figured out how to improve upon what he came up with. Heck, when you look at the drawings of Browning's original Hi-Power design, it looks like even he decided that could be improved upon:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=2DVLAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=patent+1618510&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2

...because in that picture the bullet's relationship to the chamber looks awfully similar to what you'd see in a Glock 17 today. He even ditched the barrel link. Is it specific enough to point out that even JMB, when confronted with the need to work around his own patents that were sold to Colt, took a different road and invented the design principles plainly evident in practically every other successful semi-automatic pistol that followed the 1911? Heck, that design was even striker fired. JMB darn near invented the Glock.

Oh, and my Bear works beautifully with 47D's. It won't run worth spit using Baer's own mags.

[BLR]

I distinctly remember mentioning several pages back the path that a bullet has to travel from the magazine into the chamber on a 1911 pistol. Was that not specific enough?

Fact: Look at where the top round in the mag sits in relation to the chamber on a 1911 versus any of the more modern pistols. The round has to go up at a steep angle, smack into the roof of the chamber, and then relies on the ogive of the bullet sliding along the roof of the chamber as the slide is moving forward to guide the bullet into place. I mentioned that USGI ammo was designed for optimum feeding in the 1911...which means that it was taper crimped and the exact ogive of the bullets used were specified all to try and ensure the best possible chance at reliable feeding.

Take apart any other pistol designed after the 1911 and you'll notice the magazine sits higher in relation to the bore and that there is a much straighter path to the chamber for the top round in the magazine. This is not an accident. JMB, for all his genius, didn't have high speed video. If Gaston Glock had adopted the same method of getting the bullet from the mag into the chamber his gun would have probably proven pretty finicky, too. At the time Browning's approach was better than anyone else's, but engineers working after him figured out how to improve upon what he came up with. Heck, when you look at the drawings of Browning's original Hi-Power design, it looks like even he decided that could be improved upon:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=2DVLAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=patent+1618510&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2

...because in that picture the bullet's relationship to the chamber looks awfully similar to what you'd see in a Glock 17 today. He even ditched the barrel link. Is it specific enough to point out that even JMB, when confronted with the need to work around his own patents that were sold to Colt, took a different road and invented the design principles plainly evident in practically every other successful semi-automatic pistol that followed the 1911? Heck, that design was even striker fired. JMB darn near invented the Glock.

Oh, and my Bear works beautifully with 47D's. It won't run worth spit using Baer's own mags.

Much better. I need time to think about this.

Some immediate questions:
1. Are you inferring from the unscaled patent schematics the "improved" JMB cartridge to chamber relationship in space?
2. What is the cartridge to chamber geometry of a G21 and 1911? How about the P220? I don't have a G21 to compare with. I only have a 17 and 20 to work with. Happy with the P220 on my end?
3. What is the "critical" geometry to ensure function? How much "margin of error" do we lose for every 1/64th of an inch and each degree?
4. What magazine should we settle on for the 1911? ETMs? Power Mags?

So it is your contention that the 1911, in your experience, sees such an abysmal rate of failure is due to this design feature?

I need some time to do the research on my end.

Cheers!

[jmjames]

I also called out the feed ramp geometries (as well as a few other items), and the only thing that was responded to was my commentary on extractors... which I still stand by, in terms of the issues around tensioning and having to apply wizard powers to the claw before it works well. I was VERY specific in my comments on feeding. I may not be a mechanical engineer, but I have enough math & science in my background and experience working on mechanical items to understand the basic mechanical problems with the design around this area. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that if someone designed a 1911 variant where the ramp and bullet where much closer to each other in vertical alignment, allowing a much less steep feed ramp, I bet that the majority of non-extractor problems with the design would go away.

J.Ja


I distinctly remember mentioning several pages back the path that a bullet has to travel from the magazine into the chamber on a 1911 pistol. Was that not specific enough?

Fact: Look at where the top round in the mag sits in relation to the chamber on a 1911 versus any of the more modern pistols. The round has to go up at a steep angle, smack into the roof of the chamber, and then relies on the ogive of the bullet sliding along the roof of the chamber as the slide is moving forward to guide the bullet into place. I mentioned that USGI ammo was designed for optimum feeding in the 1911...which means that it was taper crimped and the exact ogive of the bullets used were specified all to try and ensure the best possible chance at reliable feeding.

Take apart any other pistol designed after the 1911 and you'll notice the magazine sits higher in relation to the bore and that there is a much straighter path to the chamber for the top round in the magazine. This is not an accident. JMB, for all his genius, didn't have high speed video. If Gaston Glock had adopted the same method of getting the bullet from the mag into the chamber his gun would have probably proven pretty finicky, too. At the time Browning's approach was better than anyone else's, but engineers working after him figured out how to improve upon what he came up with. Heck, when you look at the drawings of Browning's original Hi-Power design, it looks like even he decided that could be improved upon:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=2DVLAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=patent+1618510&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2

...because in that picture the bullet's relationship to the chamber looks awfully similar to what you'd see in a Glock 17 today. He even ditched the barrel link. Is it specific enough to point out that even JMB, when confronted with the need to work around his own patents that were sold to Colt, took a different road and invented the design principles plainly evident in practically every other successful semi-automatic pistol that followed the 1911? Heck, that design was even striker fired. JMB darn near invented the Glock.

Oh, and my Bear works beautifully with 47D's. It won't run worth spit using Baer's own mags.

[BLR]

I also called out the feed ramp geometries (as well as a few other items), and the only thing that was responded to was my commentary on extractors... which I still stand by, in terms of the issues around tensioning and having to apply wizard powers to the claw before it works well. I was VERY specific in my comments on feeding. I may not be a mechanical engineer, but I have enough math & science in my background and experience working on mechanical items to understand the basic mechanical problems with the design around this area. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that if someone designed a 1911 variant where the ramp and bullet where much closer to each other in vertical alignment, allowing a much less steep feed ramp, I bet that the majority of non-extractor problems with the design would go away.

J.Ja

Well, no, actually you just cited opinions. You supported none of them. It's not exactly good debating to make a unfounded blanket opinion and rest on it as irrefutable. Like I said, simply saying that the such and such is wrong, and we all agree upon it au priori isn't fair to either side.

For example - when the Glock Kaboom scare came about, precisely one reasonable study (but by no means exhaustive or definitive) was made. I wish I could remember the article/book was. A mechanical engineer (a PE no less) did the study. Please don't take this wrong, but anyone (including me) should not be simply allowed to make blanket statements like yours in a discussion and expect it to hold water.

The point: Without some degree of rigor and objectivity from both sides of the discussion this will degenerate into a repeat of the oft repeated 1911 vs Glock debate which is a colossal waste of time and energy for everyone. If that is the intention, tell me now and I'll go on my happy way and we can all still be friends - albeit friends who disagree. But if it is a discussion to actually to advance the topic I'll invest the time if the other interested members on the forum are too.

Oh, and J - I'm a PhD professional engineer. I'll understand what your saying if you complete the thought.

[TCinVA]

1. Are you inferring from the unscaled patent schematics the "improved" JMB cartridge to chamber relationship in space?


Yes, as I don't exactly have Browning's original prototype of the weapon handy. Neither does anyone else outside of the Browning museum...and I doubt they care about this thread. Saive changed a great deal on the pistol and to my knowledge Browning only built one locked-breach prototype. So we're stuck with the patent drawings.



2. What is the cartridge to chamber geometry of a G21 and 1911? How about the P220? I don't have a G21 to compare with. I only have a 17 and 20 to work with. Happy with the P220 on my end?


I don't have a G21, either. You can measure umpteen different pistols and come up with slight variations, but in aggregate if you look at where the top round sits on "modern" pistols versus where it sits on a 1911 you'll see that it sits up much higher in the frame, which means a more direct path to the chamber. One need not have a PHD in mechanical engineering to grasp why that could be beneficial in a process that's happening with considerable violence in fractions of a second.



4. What magazine should we settle on for the 1911? ETMs? Power Mags?


You can't "settle" on a 1911 mag...which is part of the problem with 1911's. Some guns run fine with just about anything. Some guns will only run properly with specific types of magazines. Mine, for instance, runs just fine with 7 or 8 round Wilson mags. It won't run with Baer's own mags. It won't run with Chip McCormick mags. It will feed with Wilson 10 rounders, but they tend to get over-inserted and stuck in the gun. CMC power mags with Tripp followers were the hot ticket for a while, but that was the next "THE" solution about the time when I went plastic so I haven't kept up with whether or not it turned out to be the magic bullet.

My old Sistemas run with Wilson 7 or 8 rounders and an old Colt mag I have sitting around...but not much else. Certainly not the old worn out mags they came with.

When you buy a Glock you get a couple of Glock magazines that actually work in the gun. Same with Smith. Same with Sig. Same with Beretta. Can't really say the same for, say, Kimber. This is another one of those questions that a 1911 enthusiast figures out after trial and error with their equipment. If time, money, and will are in abundance, then it's not a big deal. If not, it's probably a bad choice.



So it is your contention that the 1911, in your experience, sees such an abysmal rate of failure is due to this design feature?


When I first looked at how the 1911 actually worked, I figured that might be a source of problem. My experience, however, is somewhat limited compared to people who've been teaching since Gunsite opened its doors or people who have an American Pistolsmith's Guild award and guns in the Smithsonian. It's worth noting that they point to the same area of problem that I noted when I was screwing around with an old Colt and dummy rounds. How far H&K got into the research of building an H&K 1911 I do not know...nor do I know how much time and effort Sig put into examining this area for potential issues when they were developing what would become the GSR.


In fact, I'll go as far as to say that if someone designed a 1911 variant where the ramp and bullet where much closer to each other in vertical alignment, allowing a much less steep feed ramp, I bet that the majority of non-extractor problems with the design would go away.


There actually have been attempts to retrofit 1911 pattern pistols with the updated camming operating principle, but they never met with much success. Whether that was a problem with design or execution I couldn't tell you. I know the "2011" pattern guns change some of those characteristics seemingly with decent success.

...of course one of those high speed units bought 2011-style raceguns based on the success they were seeing in competition and it didn't work out terribly well, so...

The closest thing I can think of to a revised 1911 in terms of pistols that actually made it is a weapon like the 4506...which was by most accounts a pretty good handgun.

[jmjames]

Well, no, actually you just cited opinions. You supported none of them. It's not exactly good debating to make a unfounded blanket opinion and rest on it as irrefutable. Like I said, simply saying that the such and such is wrong, and we all agree upon it au priori isn't fair to either side.

I think that you are substantially moving the goal posts here. First, you say ask for solid reasons why the 1911 design could be flawed. Both myself and TC mentioned the feed angles. Now you are asking for... for what, a calculation of the various angles and how a much lower friction coefficient is mandatory in the 1911 versus other designs?

But, to spell it out anyways... and please forgive any terminology issues since it's been 16 years since I took my physics courses in college...

The closer to perpendicular the surface of the bullet it when it meets the surface of the feed ramp (and later, the roof of the chamber), the greater the direct force is that will be applied to the system, and the greater the force, the greater the friction, assuming a constant friction co-efficient between the two. Therefore, the two ways to reduce the friction between the bullet and the feed ramp (and later, the roof of the chamber) is to either change the angles so that they are closer to parallel (by raising the magazine or lowering the chamber so that it is a straighter approach and redesigning the follower and feed lips to provide a straighter path), or by dramatically reducing the friction co-efficient of the two surfaces (by polishing/chroming/lubricating the bullets and/or the feed ramp and chamber).

Compared to other designs, the 1911 suffers both from often not having a very smooth feed ramp (this, by the way, baffles me... why can a $500 non-1911 have a slick feed ramp but an $800 1911 requires a ramp polish the day you get it?), having a steep feed ramp, AND sitting the bullet low in relationship to the feed ramp, forcing the bullet to take a very vertical path.

Another issue to note, is that because of the sharper angles in the feed system, the round has to maneuver farther distances in about the same about of time as it has in alternative pistols (I can't imagine that the slide moves much slower or faster in a Glock or H&K than on a 1911). That means that there is a smaller margin for error in case of a minor hangup caused by a slightly incorrect angle or greater amount of friction.

I am not sure how much more clear phrase things, given the distance in time between myself and the academic application of this kind of knowledge...

If you are going to insist upon an actual calculation of this, I can't help you there. I have not the time to spend on such an exercise, nor do I have a 1911 handy (let alone the tools) to take the needed measurements, particularly calculations of friction coefficients... that said, as a professional engineer, the principle that I am speaking to should be quite easy to understand without needing to perform the calculations. You can do a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation involving angles of force application and a constant friction co-efficient (we're going to assume that Glock, H&K, etc. have feed ramps at the same level of polish as the 1911 and that the bullet jackets are the same), and it is trivial to see that more shallow feed angles results in lower force required to feed a round, and therefore, higher margins for error during the feeding process.

J.Ja

[TCinVA]

(this, by the way, baffles me... why can a $500 non-1911 have a slick feed ramp but an $800 1911 requires a ramp polish the day you get it?),

Just a wild guess, but I would suspect it's easier to address feed ramp issues during production when it's part of the barrel of the weapon than when it's sunk down into a difficult-to-access area of the frame.

[SecondsCount]

I have probably about $20k tied up into 1911's.

Why?

Because it's my money and I can spend it however I want. I don't much care what anyone else thinks about how that money could have been spent better on a different pistol or caliber or training or whatever. If I choose to drop $9k on a hand built, one of a kind precision rifle, or $17k on a an NFA gun, or $5k on a 1911, it is really irrelevent what someone else thinks about it. When they make my money for me, then I will concern myself with their opinion. Until then, it's mine to do with what I choose.

I figure I have enough experience at this point in my life that I can make my own decisions as to what is an appropriate tool for the task at hand. I don't concern myself with trying to tell someone else what they should be using for a particular circumstance or situation. And I don't concern myself with what somone else thinks of my selection. I have my reasons, and that is good enough for me.

Awesome! :cool:

[BLR]

I think that you are substantially moving the goal posts here. First, you say ask for solid reasons why the 1911 design could be flawed. Both myself and TC mentioned the feed angles. Now you are asking for... for what, a calculation of the various angles and how a much lower friction coefficient is mandatory in the 1911 versus other designs?

I would disagree. I'm not interested, as I've stated, in a definitive "win" or "goal" for anyone. I'm asking for an intelligent, dispassionate discussion on the design deficiencies of the 1911 as compared with it's modern contemporaries. If I were interested in simply mimicking every other mindless 1911 vs whatever thread out there, I'd do it at Glock Talk or 1911forum.com. But I'm not. I don't have the time to waste. I am interested in broadening my understanding and knowledge base. Are you?

But, to spell it out anyways... and please forgive any terminology issues since it's been 16 years since I took my physics courses in college...

The closer to perpendicular the surface of the bullet it when it meets the surface of the feed ramp (and later, the roof of the chamber), the greater the direct force is that will be applied to the system, and the greater the force, the greater the friction, assuming a constant friction co-efficient between the two. Therefore, the two ways to reduce the friction between the bullet and the feed ramp (and later, the roof of the chamber) is to either change the angles so that they are closer to parallel (by raising the magazine or lowering the chamber so that it is a straighter approach and redesigning the follower and feed lips to provide a straighter path), or by dramatically reducing the friction co-efficient of the two surfaces (by polishing/chroming/lubricating the bullets and/or the feed ramp and chamber).

True enough for this discussion. But I'll offer you the same advice I got as a EIT doing a job: a quote from Lord Kelvin (the William Thomson one) which is "In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." To that end, I am the only one offering to measure things and build knowledge upon that. You, and the rest, are merely parroting opinions that have been expressed historically. Depending on the level of understanding you'd like, that may be sufficient. For me, here and now, it is not. Especially when terms like "wizard" are thrown around.

Compared to other designs, the 1911 suffers both from often not having a very smooth feed ramp (this, by the way, baffles me... why can a $500 non-1911 have a slick feed ramp but an $800 1911 requires a ramp polish the day you get it?), having a steep feed ramp, AND sitting the bullet low in relationship to the feed ramp, forcing the bullet to take a very vertical path.

Another issue to note, is that because of the sharper angles in the feed system, the round has to maneuver farther distances in about the same about of time as it has in alternative pistols (I can't imagine that the slide moves much slower or faster in a Glock or H&K than on a 1911). That means that there is a smaller margin for error in case of a minor hangup caused by a slightly incorrect angle or greater amount of friction.

I am not sure how much more clear phrase things, given the distance in time between myself and the academic application of this kind of knowledge...

You completely fail to see the point. It is a good practice in life, not just shooting, to never assume what you're being told is accurate, or even grounded in reality. TC and LL's experience with 1911s varies significantly from mine - thus I question them and the causation of their experience.

If you are going to insist upon an actual calculation of this, I can't help you there. I have not the time to spend on such an exercise, nor do I have a 1911 handy (let alone the tools) to take the needed measurements, particularly calculations of friction coefficients... that said, as a professional engineer, the principle that I am speaking to should be quite easy to understand without needing to perform the calculations. You can do a simple (The calculation wouldn't be as simple as you describe, actually - It is a machine dynamics problem with a good deal of variables not to mention, an impressive number of degrees of freedom) back-of-the-envelope calculation involving angles of force application and a constant friction co-efficient (we're going to assume that Glock, H&K, etc. have feed ramps at the same level of polish as the 1911 and that the bullet jackets are the same), and it is trivial to see that more shallow feed angles results in lower force required to feed a round, and therefore, higher margins for error during the feeding process.

I don't disagree with inline feeding being beneficial. I'm trying to determine just how beneficial it is. If you can't see the value in that, I'm not sure I can help you. F-Troop, if you think that is a "gun store level" position to take, you go to very different gun stores than me. The ones I'm familiar with simply parrot things they have been told, and fail to understand (or want to) what they are discussing.

J.Ja

So what you are saying is that unless I am willing to take what is being regurgitated by everyone, who have neither the time nor inclination to actually gain a first hand knowledge of the problem, we don't have a discussion. Because if that is the case, you are not interested in a discussion, only an argument.

That's fine. Like I said earlier, I'm not interested in just arguing. A parting thought: How many forum threads on Glocks kabooming with lead were argued, made no progress and were subsequently forgotten? Same here. However, the only even semi-scientific study on it gets published - I believe it is either cited in or reprinted in "The Glock in Competition." If your $500-$2500 class instructor offers an opinion they can't back up - would you feel cheated?

[jmjames]

So what you are saying is that unless I am willing to take what is being regurgitated by everyone, who have neither the time nor inclination to actually gain a first hand knowledge of the problem, we don't have a discussion. Because if that is the case, you are not interested in a discussion, only an argument.

That's fine. Like I said earlier, I'm not interested in just arguing. A parting thought: How many forum threads on Glocks kabooming with lead were argued, made no progress and were subsequently forgotten? Same here. However, the only even semi-scientific study on it gets published - I believe it is either cited in or reprinted in "The Glock in Competition." If your $500-$2500 class instructor offers an opinion they can't back up - would you feel cheated?

My opinion on the topic of 1911 feed ramps is informed almost exclusively by my limited, yet direct, hands on experience. I'm a relatively newcomer to the world of pistols. It's been roughly a year since I bought my first pistol, and I don't habituate any firearms forums other than this one. I've never been to a trainer who ever once mentioned anything about 1911's, good or bad. Other than Yeager's "don't buy anything other than a Glock 19 or 17" video, and the occasional mentions by someone like TLG about 1911's, I don't have much exposure to "big time names" going on about 1911's. I'm not exactly buying anyone's junk arguments or regurgitating something I read on the Internet. I only learned terms like "3 point jam" after I figured out what was going wrong with the 1911 that I had.

What I *have* done is owned a 1911 that jammed... a lot. As in, "one or two times in every magazine". And I spent a good amount of my time and money experimenting with dummy rounds, empty shells, and live rounds to see where this particular pistol was experiencing issues. And I learned plenty just by observation. What I saw was a system that was slamming two surfaces together at an angle significantly different from the intended line of travel, which will increase resistance from friction, slowing the system down... which meant that as other parts of the system required additional motion (such as the base of the cartridge sliding upwards against the breechface), the needed velocity to overcome the friction there was not as likely to be happening, causing a jam.

My proof? A whole series of empty cases where the base of the cases had been quite obviously scraped by the breechface, along with corresponding traces of brass on the breechface (showing that the case markings came form the breechface, not somewhere else). There was clearly a lot of friction between the two surfaces. I inspected the breechface, and there were no obvious toolmarks or other things that could be the issue. Where was the friction coming from? It was coming from the nose of the round being jammed HARD, first against the feed ramp, and later the roof of the chamber, which increased the direct force being applied to the case/breechface connection. How do I know this? Every round I cycled through the gun had significant setback on the bullet. I haven't owned a lot of pistols, but I never saw any other pistol where cycling the same round one or two times through would cause setback so significant, it was noticeable even without comparing to another round or measuring. When you can look at a round after it's been cycled a couple of times and say, "wow, there's something wrong with that" then the setback is severe.

Moral of the story? The bullets were being slammed hard at an angle relatively close to perpendicular against the surfaces that were supposed to gently deflect their angle of movement to the proper place. Friction was being increased to levels that the recoil spring could not compensate for. The end result was jams.

During my testing, I noticed that the jams were significantly more likely when I hand-cycled. In addition, a release from slide lock would almost always produce a failure to return to battery, where the round was about 1/4" - 1/2" away from being all the way in the chamber, but it was obvious that the round simply could not transition to a fully parallel-to-the-chamber position by the time it needed to. A "slingshot" was the most reliable way to return it to battery. Live fire was the most reliable of all. The obvious "solution" (ie: workaround...) was to simple increase recoil spring strength to brute force the system to battery, but the result of that was insufficient slide speed to reliably eject rounds, and stovepipes.

I think that the comparison in setback between a 1911 and other pistols is telling. While I do not have a 1911 handy, I am sure that if you take the typical 1911 off the shelf, and cycle a box of rounds through it, putting each round through 5 cycles, you'll see a lot more average setback than on another design also using the same rounds (say, an HK45 or a Glock in .45, or even a CZ variant chambered for .45).

This particular pistol was caught between a rock and a hard place: needing just the right amount of heavy recoil spring to return to battery, and needing just the right amount of light recoil spring to allow ejection. Not only is that a tricky juggling act to keep up with, but the nature of spring wear forces you to keep up with it.

I am not sure if this meets your standards for what is a useful piece of information in a discussion, but it is my direct, hands-on experience which has informed my understanding of the 1911's mechanics. While it may be a "sample set of one", I think that the experience was more than ample to educate me about the affects of angles within the 1911 feed system, to the point where, a few hundred dollars in ammunition later, I can say without a doubt that the feed system of the 1911 design contains certain decisions and assumptions (most of them because it was designed to use ball ammo of an exact specification and nothing else) that increase its likelihood of a feeding problem if any aspect of the parts, magazine, rounds, etc. are out of spec, and significantly reduce the margin for error in the case of out-of-spec anything. In other words, a 10% difference in whatever in a 1911 is more likely to produce a feeding jam than in a different design.

J.Ja

[TCinVA]

This particular pistol was caught between a rock and a hard place: needing just the right amount of heavy recoil spring to return to battery, and needing just the right amount of light recoil spring to allow ejection. Not only is that a tricky juggling act to keep up with, but the nature of spring wear forces you to keep up with it.


...and let me say that you're not the first guy who has run into that sort of problem. With the complicated feed path at the heart of its function, the margin for error goes pretty low. This is one reason why chopped 1911's tend to perform so badly. It's complicated enough when you're dealing with a 5 inch gun and a reasonable slide velocity...but chop 2 inches off the barrel and slide and now the slide is going to move much faster, which will usually require heavier recoil springs. Fail to keep up with the spring changes and the slide moves too fast, which means that the spent case probably won't be clear of the ejection port before the weapon tries to feed the next round...and the end result is a feedway stoppage. Now pair this with an extractor that isn't set up to grab the right bit of the case's rim and it's possible for the extractor to miss the rim, and you get a failure to extract before the weapon tries to cram another round into the chamber...and the end result is a feedway stoppage. Or it may eject the spent cartridge just fine but attempt to close before the mag spring (got to keep up with those mag spring changes!!!) has actually pushed the next round up into position and the slide can ram home over the top of it entirely, or only grab just the edge of the case slamming the round into the feed ramp hard enough that it doesn't pop free of the mag and move up, but instead stays horizontal and wedges in there under the spring tension for the slide...and the end result is a feedway stoppage.

Etc.

With that complicated feed path a whole lot of things have to be just so for it to go off properly. Looking at just the mag spring, on a 5" gun with a heavy recoil spring (I use 20 pound springs in my Baer) the slide moves with sufficiently slow speed that even a fairly weak spring that won't lock the slide to the rear can still push the rounds up just fast enough to allow the slide to strip it from the magazine. Drop the weight of my recoil spring and I'm going to experience problems. Of course, fire weak ammo in my gun that's sprung with a 20 pound spring and I'm likely to experience problems, too...which is why all I ever shoot is 230 grain hardball or JHP rounds at least that potent that have a bullet ogive that matches up fairly close to a proper hardball round. Speer's current generation Gold Dot 230 grain JHP load has always worked well in my pistol. Figuring all of this out took experimentation, time, and money.

It was a lot less complicated with my 3rd Gen Glock 17. Or the 2nd gen gun I sold some years ago to fund the 1911.

[JAD]

I must be really lucky. None of my 1911s have been nearly that hard to work with, except for an ill-considered 3" external-extractor Kimber. Three Colt lightweight commanders (a 1968, a 1995 Mark IV, and a 2005 XSE), a Kimber 5", a Colt series 70 from the early 80s, and a late 90's Springfield Mil-Spec all fed merrily with a wide range of loads with factory recoil springs. They're not 'flawless,' by any means, but I would have gunshowed that Baer, I was you.

[JAD]

On a separate line of discussion -- which is ironic since I was wishing this thread dead just last night -- it has been my perception that >4" 1911s will cycle reliably regardless of how they're held (I used to demo this until I discovered that if you hold the 1911 lightly enough it will bouncefire, which is a little exciting). It was my experience with Glocks and short 1911s (both) that I could reliably get them to fail by holding them loosely. Do I misremember, or am I misperceiving, or is that a known fact sort of thing?

[SecondsCount]

...

With that complicated feed path a whole lot of things have to be just so for it to go off properly. Looking at just the mag spring, on a 5" gun with a heavy recoil spring (I use 20 pound springs in my Baer) the slide moves with sufficiently slow speed that even a fairly weak spring that won't lock the slide to the rear can still push the rounds up just fast enough to allow the slide to strip it from the magazine. Drop the weight of my recoil spring and I'm going to experience problems. Of course, fire weak ammo in my gun that's sprung with a 20 pound spring and I'm likely to experience problems, too...which is why all I ever shoot is 230 grain hardball or JHP rounds at least that potent that have a bullet ogive that matches up fairly close to a proper hardball round. Speer's current generation Gold Dot 230 grain JHP load has always worked well in my pistol. Figuring all of this out took experimentation, time, and money.

It was a lot less complicated with my 3rd Gen Glock 17. Or the 2nd gen gun I sold some years ago to fund the 1911.

I remember you talking pretty highly of a Les Baer a few years ago. Was the one you had issues with the same as this one?
http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=5855&postcount=64

For some reason it stuck in my head because I like Baers and your two-tone was a model I always wanted.

[jeffreywt]

I bought a used Kimber Desert Warrior a year and a half ago. It was my first 1911 and I wanted to learn to detail strip one, etc. The price was so good on it I could not pass it up as it was already a beater of sorts. The perfect learning tool for me.

The pistol had the same issue described over and over in this thread. Rounds nose-diving into the top of the chamber and getting stuck. It didn't matter what weight recoil spring or mags I used. At least once out of a box of 50 or 100 rounds it would fail to feed in this manner. I traded the gun (made $100 on it) for a Colt Rail Gun.

Time will tell how the Colt performs. I do like the 1911 for many reasons and want to keep one in my "collection" (not really a collector).

I own two G17's for matches and classes. I carry a G19 daily. :cool:

[YVK]

I bought a used Kimber Desert Warrior a year and a half ago. It was my first 1911 and I wanted to learn to detail strip one, etc. The price was so good on it I could not pass it up as it was already a beater of sorts. The perfect learning tool for me.

The pistol had the same issue described over and over in this thread. Rounds nose-diving into the top of the chamber and getting stuck. It didn't matter what weight recoil spring or mags I used. At least once out of a box of 50 or 100 rounds it would fail to feed in this manner. I traded the gun (made $100 on it) for a Colt Rail Gun.
:

Good trade. Number of problematic Warriors that I've heard and seen, including those that couldn't be fixed by experts, exceeds my expectations, in a negative way.

The following link should be a sticky in "Armorer's" section of every pistol-related site, IMO. Excellent reality check in how problematic 1911s could be, and great aid in troubleshooting and fixing those.

http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=51276&page=1

[TCinVA]

I remember you talking pretty highly of a Les Baer a few years ago. Was the one you had issues with the same as this one?
http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=5855&postcount=64

For some reason it stuck in my head because I like Baers and your two-tone was a model I always wanted.

That's my baby. She's a little more dinged up now than in that photo as she endured more classes and carry time after that photo was taken. I had a thing for the two tone look ever since I saw a genuine Pachmayr custom in the early 1980's up close. I was but a tike, but it made an impression on me that stuck. I'll admit that Don Johnson waving around a two tone .38 super didn't really help disabuse me of the desire for a two-toned gun, either.

She's the best 1911 I've ever owned by a wide margin...but she still has her little idiosyncrasies. Like any relationship, I learned what I needed to do to keep her happy. I love my 1911 in a thoroughly irrational way. In fact, last night while I was working from home waiting on a process to complete I pulled her out of the box and gave her a look over because all this 1911 talk is making me nostalgic. She needs a good cleaning and it's time to replace her recoil spring again.

My 1911 is a good gun and has been as reliable as you can expect a 1911 to be. Unfortunately to get to that really good one there was a string of not very good 1911's that led to finally biting the bullet and dropping the bargain basement price of $1700 bucks for that pistol some years ago. And even at that price and with a 6 month wait, they didn't put the night sights I ordered on the gun. Even after getting her it took some time and experimentation to find out what she liked to run with. Once you get all that figured out with the specimen you're holding, it doesn't seem like that big a deal from then on. But the first time you load up a $1,700.00 pistol (which was a lot of money for me, especially at the time I bought it) with the one mag that came in the gun and you get an immediate failure to chamber a round when dropping the slide from lock, you get pretty darn nervous.

Whereas with my Glock 17 which, at the moment, is sitting in the bottom of a range bag because that's how little I care, has just worked from day 1. I've cleaned it maybe three times in the years that I've owned it. As a tool, it's been a superior tool. The Baer is an object of affection. The Glock is a wrench.


On a separate line of discussion -- which is ironic since I was wishing this thread dead just last night -- it has been my perception that >4" 1911s will cycle reliably regardless of how they're held (I used to demo this until I discovered that if you hold the 1911 lightly enough it will bouncefire, which is a little exciting). It was my experience with Glocks and short 1911s (both) that I could reliably get them to fail by holding them loosely. Do I misremember, or am I misperceiving, or is that a known fact sort of thing?

Generally speaking, if a 1911 is in a happy state and is being fed with proper ammo for that happy state, all the ones I've tried will fire with just a two fingered hold. My Baer, for instance, I can hold with just my thumb pressing in the grip safety and using my trigger finger for the trigger, and it will cycle reliably that way. A newly-sprung Glock 19 loaded with typical 9mm FMJ will generally at least stovepipe under those circumstances.

[NickA]

The Glock is a wrench.

Awesome.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[BLR]

I spent a few hours yesterday and today thinking through the feed angle matter. A few initial ideas, a quick comparison, and a more thorough (though still causal) investigation yielded a few thoughts. I started with an internet search and progressed from there.

So a quick internet search yields a couple interesting bits:
1. The "problematic feed geometry" was (to the best I can determine - and I apologize in advance if I am mistaken with this) first penned by P. Sweeney in his 1911 Book, Vol 1. In the book, he compares a 1911 with a 92FS and cites a low cartridge to chamber relationship. Well, that's not exactly apples to oranges, more apples to pears. Anyway, I wanted to compare two 45s. So I picked a P220. We can argue the reliability of a 1911, but you'll not convince me that a P220 has reliability problems. That just won't hold water.
2. It seems, aside from Sweeney's book, there really isn't much out there. I mean, I really expected to have at least a few dissertations on the matter. But no, really, only Sweeney even looked at it. And please do not interpret this post as a critique of Sweeney's work. It really is just a continuation of that - another data point at best. I offer no further warranty than that.

After the internet search not yielding the information I needed, I pulled out a P220 and an Ed Brown Executive Elite. A disclaimer or two: P220s are only behind 1911s and Pythons in terms of my love. P220s, and P226s, I think are just about as good as a modern gun gets. I will point out P220s initially came with internal extractors, for what that is worth. Anyway, on to the comparison.

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Liberty-20120517-00439.jpg
http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Union-20120517-00440.jpg
http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Union-20120517-00441.jpg

So some initial thoughts on magazines (as an integral part of feeding, they bare some scrutiny). The cartridge axis is more closely perpendicular on the 220 magazine than the Brown "8 Pack." Magazines are similar. Both incorporate anti-tipping followers. The feed lips on the 220 are more defined, being more "closed" for the cartridge. My ETMs are more similar to the 220s. But there is a significant difference between the two that I will discuss further later.
The 220:

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Liberty-20120517-00446.jpg

The 1911:

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Liberty-20120517-00445.jpg

And just because I had them off, here is the bottom up view of the slides (P220 on top).

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Liberty-20120517-00447.jpg

If the images are not clear enough, I can try retaking them with some help and a steel rule behind them. In person, the difference was surprising to me. I really expected the P220 to have a significantly higher cartridge to bore relationship. It turned out the other way around.

Now for the, at least to me, more interesting bit. When comparing the magazines, I noticed that the magazine spring strength on the P220 was significantly higher. High enough that the 8th round in the P220 is very difficult to load. Not so with any of my 1911 8 round mags. Now to the hypothesis. I believe what is being suggested/alluded to as the "problem" with feed angles is really nose diving during feeding. While the P220 had a significantly (1/8th inch or so) relationship to the chamber, I could not under any circumstance make the nose dive. Not so with some of my "lesser" 1911 mags. Some even do not have anti-tip followers. The good ones do. And they are as effective as the 220s. However, none had the tension the 220s did except those that had their springs changed with Wolf extra power springs.

I will be first to admit this is not exhaustive as a study, and certainly not conclusive. But the fact remains, in this instance the 1911s feed angle is superior to the 220.

Oh - and the offending pistols: 2012 EB Executive Elite and 2011 P220 Elite Dark.

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Union-20120517-00437.jpg

[ToddG]

I was told by the (then-) head engineer at SIG that high-speed photography showed the P220 does not, in fact, strip the top round from the magazine via forward motion of the slide. In fact -- and to everyone's surprise when it was first seen -- the backwards momentum of the slide actually causes the top round in the magazine to leap forward into the chamber.

[Ed L]

So a quick internet search yields a couple interesting bits:
1. The "problematic feed geometry" was (to the best I can determine - and I apologize in advance if I am mistaken with this) first penned by P. Sweeney in his 1911 Book, Vol 1. In the book, he compares a 1911 with a 92FS and cites a low cartridge to chamber relationship.

Larry Vickers pointed out that the 1911 has a much more difficult, less straight forward feed path than modren automatics like a Glock or an M&P. He did so in his 1911 Operators class which was covered in a back issue of SWAT magazine (June 2008) in an article which I wrote.


So I picked a P220. We can argue the reliability of a 1911, but you'll not convince me that a P220 has reliability problems. That just won't hold water.

The P220 has durrability problems as reported by SMEs like DocGKR.

[BLR]

Larry Vickers pointed out that the 1911 has a much more difficult, less straight forward feed path than modren automatics like a Glock or an M&P. He did so in his 1911 Operators class which was covered in a back issue of SWAT magazine (June 2008) in an article which I wrote.

I may stand corrected then. I don't remember when Sweeney's book was published, though that doesnt really alter the argument.



The P220 has durrability problems as reported by SMEs like DocGKR.

This post was concerning reliability rather than durability. As I've not actually broken a gun, I cannot comment to that aspect of by beloved 220.

SME = Society of Mechanical Engineers?



Todd - That sounds like a brilliant joke. I'd pay money to see that!

[BCL]

SME = Society of Mechanical Engineers?

Not sure if this was a legitimate question or not. If it was, then SME = Subject Matter Expert.

[BLR]

Not sure if this was a legitimate question or not. If it was, then SME = Subject Matter Expert.

Yeah, mental block for a sec. That was the first SME that popped into mind - a leftover from my world I suppose.

Subject Matter Expert on wound ballistics - got it.

[Odin Bravo One]

[QUOTE=Sean M;71159]I have probably about $20k tied up into 1911's.

QUOTE]

Quick update.........

That should now read $25k tied up into 1911's.

This thread inspired me to pick up two more.


Interesting note on the 220. I shot one into extinction a few years ago, and one older model 226. Come to find out there was a maintenance schedule that I should have been following. As with most modern firearms.

Who knew?

[dbm]

I was told by the (then-) head engineer at SIG that high-speed photography showed the P220 does not, in fact, strip the top round from the magazine via forward motion of the slide. In fact -- and to everyone's surprise when it was first seen -- the backwards momentum of the slide actually causes the top round in the magazine to leap forward into the chamber.

I'm the un-expert here; but, you'll have to show me this before I become a true believer. :confused:

[ToddG]

I'm the un-expert here; but, you'll have to show me this before I become a true believer. :confused:

OK, I suggest starting here (http://www.sigsauer.com/AboutUs/CareersJobs.aspx).

[dbm]

OK, I suggest starting here (http://www.sigsauer.com/AboutUs/CareersJobs.aspx).

Oh, thanks. :cool:

[derekb]

Are there any compilations of high-speed video recordings of pistol loading mechanisms out there? If not, there definitely should be.

[jmjames]

Now for the, at least to me, more interesting bit. When comparing the magazines, I noticed that the magazine spring strength on the P220 was significantly higher. High enough that the 8th round in the P220 is very difficult to load. Not so with any of my 1911 8 round mags. Now to the hypothesis. I believe what is being suggested/alluded to as the "problem" with feed angles is really nose diving during feeding. While the P220 had a significantly (1/8th inch or so) relationship to the chamber, I could not under any circumstance make the nose dive. Not so with some of my "lesser" 1911 mags. Some even do not have anti-tip followers. The good ones do. And they are as effective as the 220s. However, none had the tension the 220s did except those that had their springs changed with Wolf extra power springs.

I will be first to admit this is not exhaustive as a study, and certainly not conclusive. But the fact remains, in this instance the 1911s feed angle is superior to the 220.


Excellent comparison work, thanks!

This does help explain why 1911 mags that look identical can have a radically different impact on feed reliability.

An interesting experiment to do, since the magazines are roughly the same sizes, would be to swap springs and see if the 220 suddenly starts choking.

J.Ja

[BLR]

Excellent comparison work, thanks!

This does help explain why 1911 mags that look identical can have a radically different impact on feed reliability.

An interesting experiment to do, since the magazines are roughly the same sizes, would be to swap springs and see if the 220 suddenly starts choking.

J.Ja

Thank you.

FYI - I'm comparing a Wilson CQB-E and a Glock G20SF right now. Doesnt appear to be a night and day difference like the P220. I'll post pics tomorrow.

I hate to say it, but the further I dig, the more I believe a "full size" 45 was compared to a "full size" 9mm. I'll post pics of a G17 too. (I have several very reliable 3rd Gen Glocks that I won't be parting with. They are just, well, ugly. And I have a strong preference for a manual safety).

I'll also mention - EVERY 1911 mag I have is getting new extra heavy springs now. And I'm switching favorite brands. Not that I've been having trouble, but a good comparison is enlightening.

That's all for tonight.

[SecondsCount]

Are there any compilations of high-speed video recordings of pistol loading mechanisms out there? If not, there definitely should be.

Tripp Research has a cool video http://www.trippresearch.com/tech/video.html

blr, be careful with the extra power springs as they can spread feed lips.

[jmjames]

blr, be careful with the extra power springs as they can spread feed lips.

Also, I was thinking that if the feed lips are rough, the extra tension may cause new, different feed issues. I saw this on my PSL, rough feed lips (40 year old Romanian surplus steel mags apparently come with a good chance of rust on the inside...) were hanging up the rounds (rimmed rounds don't help) enough to slow the bolt down and prevent the bolt from fully locking... causing the problems you'd expect to see...

J.Ja

[BLR]

Also, I was thinking that if the feed lips are rough, the extra tension may cause new, different feed issues. I saw this on my PSL, rough feed lips (40 year old Romanian surplus steel mags apparently come with a good chance of rust on the inside...) were hanging up the rounds (rimmed rounds don't help) enough to slow the bolt down and prevent the bolt from fully locking... causing the problems you'd expect to see...

J.Ja

Next time we rent a HS camera, I'm going to do a little photography.

But more to your comments - I can easily see that to be the case.

Also note, on this stock Brown, the extractor has not been polished on the hook. It looks as though it was taken right from the bag and put in the gun.

An interesting opinion on extractor fitment, and one that I have not verified or given more than passing thought (so I'm guilty of what I indicating is less than a good practice :rolleyes:), the ability for an extractor to "clock" to some degree is not inherently bad. It allows clearance/movement to compensate for small pieces of brass and the sort. Again, not verified or tested. And I've yet to encounter an instance where my 1911s with "tight" extractors failed me. But it's an interesting perspective and one that I cannot necessarily disagree with.

I pulled out my CQB-E, G20SF, and a M&P 40 to look at today. Will post pics when I get a chance. But like I said, don't expect huge differences like with the 220.

So, are we still on the feed angle point? Or are we progressing on to the next? If so, what would that be? Durability? I speak fracture and fatigue mechanics like a native, so that would be an interesting topic for me.

[BLR]

The three pistols in question: A CQB Elite 10mm/40S&W Combo gun (10mm bbl installed); Glock G20SF purchased last year, and a M&P 40 purchased a few years ago.

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Union-20120518-00453.jpg

First the M&P:

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Liberty-20120518-00448.jpg

The word around the campfire (I don't have inroads to S&W) is that the M&P was designed as a 40 to start. I can neither confirm or deny.

Now the G20SF:

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Union-20120518-00449.jpg

That is one big, chunky pistol. The SF frame helps, but it's still a monster. Lots of stampings and (if it matters to you, and it shouldnt) MIM parts everywhere. Just like the M&P.

And on to the house favorite, the CQB-Elite:

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Union-20120518-00450.jpg

You can buy 10 of the others for that hunk of steel. Is it worth it? To me, yes. But I'm not big on justifications of my purchases.

The analysis: the M&P sits the lowest and at the greatest departure from bore centerline. The Glock and the 1911 are approximately the same as far as I can tell. The plastic guns are using the factor mags, the CQB is using Cobra mags.

And again, since we had them all apart, the view from the bottom up:

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/blriehl/Union-20120518-00452.jpg

I trust you can tell them apart.

Though the picture doesn't do the Wilson's extractor justice, nothing comes close to the beefiness of the M&P.

ETA: After all this, I'll concede another point of superiority to the plastic guns. They are superior in disassembly/reassembly ease. Though, I wound not say the CQB was "difficult" by any stretch. The others we just easier.

[ToddG]

Comparing the angle of the round in the mag to the barrel in-battery doesn't show the geometry involved when the barrel is unlocked and tilted during the feeding/chambering stage in the cycle of operation. The rounds also don't necessarily leave the magazine in a straight forward line.

I think the analysis you're doing is very interesting, but IMO the above considerations need to be taken into account.

[LittleLebowski]

Is the P220 one of the more reliable designs out there today? How does it compare to the 9mm SIGs (excepting the P250)?

[BLR]

Comparing the angle of the round in the mag to the barrel in-battery doesn't show the geometry involved when the barrel is unlocked and tilted during the feeding/chambering stage in the cycle of operation. The rounds also don't necessarily leave the magazine in a straight forward line.

I think the analysis you're doing is very interesting, but IMO the above considerations need to be taken into account.

Good points, well made.

The barrels, in these pictures, are in their most rearward travel position and tilted approximately as they would be during the slides most rearward position, not in-battery.

As suggested before, slow motion pictures side by side would be beneficial to have. At least to be more conclusive.

On the second point - very true. In fact, much money has been spent on engineering "no tip" followers by many different companies to minimize (looking simplistically at the vectors involved will ensure you can never eliminate) nose dive. I have cheap gunshow 1911 mags that nose dive by hand cycling dummy rounds. Though I will offer, the physics of feeding are not going to be night and day different. The angles are all close, the distances and forces as well. If things like slide velocities were different by 50% or more, I'd be more concerned with this.

However, I still hold this pictures as suggestive. Not conclusive, but very suggestive. I would expect the "opposing camp" to offer evidence to the contrary to discount them.

LL - on the 220? I have no idea. I can only speak from experience in that they have been trouble free for me for a long time. Is the suggestion that the problem is caliber related? A design concession for caliber, such as it is?

[LittleLebowski]

LL - on the 220? I have no idea. I can only speak from experience in that they have been trouble free for me for a long time. Is the suggestion that the problem is caliber related? A design concession for caliber, such as it is?

No, just thought I read something somewhere on the P220 being less durable or reliable than the classic SIG 9mms. I don't recall where I read it so I was seeking info.

[NickA]

No, just thought I read something somewhere on the P220 being less durable or reliable than the classic SIG 9mms. I don't recall where I read it so I was seeking info.

Can't find it right now but I think you're right. Seems like there were some posts about a certain part (slide lock maybe?) breaking fairly often, at least on certain 220's.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[BLR]

No, just thought I read something somewhere on the P220 being less durable or reliable than the classic SIG 9mms. I don't recall where I read it so I was seeking info.

You might have been able to talk me into that idea. At least right now. I'm looking at my 9mms tonight.

[ToddG]

The barrels, in these pictures, are in their most rearward travel position and tilted approximately as they would be during the slides most rearward position, not in-battery.

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification or the repeat if you said so earlier and I missed it.

[ToddG]

No, just thought I read something somewhere on the P220 being less durable or reliable than the classic SIG 9mms.

Durability and reliability are two different things.

[LittleLebowski]

Durability and reliability are two different things.

I know; I just couldn't remember which one so I was hoping someone else could weigh in.

[ToddG]

The P220, especially early models produced prior to the upgrade that strengthened the frame for +p ammunition, has a reputation for being less durable than some of its steel- and polymer-framed competition. Nonetheless, in my experience they hold up much longer than the vast majority of shooters.

[NickA]

I know; I just couldn't remember which one so I was hoping someone else could weigh in.

Here is the thread I was thinking of (I think). See TLG's posts.

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?739-SIG-P220R-Malfunctions&highlight=P220

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[BLR]

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification or the repeat if you said so earlier and I missed it.

Not at all.

I must say, this thread has had an impact on me. I've never really looked that closely at my stuff. In fact, I'm changing mag brands as a result.

Cheers,

Bill

[ToddG]

I've never really looked that closely at my stuff.

Phrasing!

[JMS]

LL, was it the one noted on M4C, a couple years back? Centered on data drawn from a broad array of LE agency guns and compiled by an LE agency armorer, that indicated a highter incidence of breakage and amount of care required for the 220s in comparison to the other calibers of the same brand and pattern. It was old enough that I doubt that it factored in Sig's waste-of-skin honcho's efforts to undermine their quality; he hadn't been on-deck long enough for those to truly take hold, even if the "Kimber went to hell under him, now he's at Sig" correlation came later.

I remember it as being more thought-provoking than anything else, as the difference between one caliber Sig and another was mostly just enough to note a difference and advocate revising the maintenance cycle. Wasn't a sweeping condemnation or anything like that.

I ended up pinging a 2112 (they guys that fix MEU/SOCs, among other things...) about the idea of WWII/Korea frames. His snort of derision was loud enough that I'm surprised I'm not down an eardrum. :D

[jmjames]

blr -

Excellent comparisons once again!

Another set of comparisons that I think would be important (and is kind of visible in the pictures), is the distance from the nose of bullet to the ramp, the length of the ramp, and the angle of the ramp. That's going to be a bit harder to look at, I think, due to the internal part ramp on the 1911.

The father the round starts from the chamber, the more shallow the feed angle can be, and that can offset the initial vertical position in the mag in relationship to the chamber.

Another thing to look at too, is what the rounds look like as they strip out of the magazine, and whether or not the angles change based on how many rounds are left in the magazine. I just tested on a P30 15 round mag and a P2000SK 10 round mag, and in both cases, the round tips slightly down as I push it through by hand, and the first and last rounds feed identically. Both mags are fairly new (< 500 rounds through them each, roughly).

Here is a picture of an HK P2000SK (the P30 should be identical) at slidelock, so the barrel is tilted down. It's a bit tough to see, but the bottom of the round is already positioned about halfway up the ramp, the angle of the round is mild (10 degrees? 15 degrees? off from the angle of the barrel), which makes it a very smooth ride into the chamber.

762

Now (switching to snap caps for safety)... here's the progressing of the chambering process (I just gripped the whole thing HARD with my left hand to lock it in place, and slowly let it slide forwards to take the pictures). Something I noticed, there was a point in the chambering where the round "snapped" up significantly, but at the moment in time, it was fairly loose. What happened, is that it had cleared the feed lips, so the follower popped up one "notch" so-to-speak. The round was unsupported at the rear, and was not in the chamber well enough for that to hold it. The extractor had not grabbed the rim yet. I think that this is a critical part of the HK reliability story. Because the round is line up enough so that any forwards motion will let it get into the chamber, and it is surrounded enough so that even when moving, it won't jump out of the right path, there is no doubt that it can get into the chamber, but it is so loose, that even if something were to have gone wrong, it will end up in the chamber. The nose of the bullet is past the ramp when this happens, so it can't nose dive or nose jump and cause a jam, but there's so much play that there's virtually no friction.

I think that it is VERY telling that I can 100% reliably chamber rounds while grasping the slide & frame and allowing only 1/4" of motion at a time while taking pictures, shifting positions of the gun, turning it upside down, etc. You could do a trapeze act while riding the slide, and the round will end up in that chamber with the extractor properly hooked on the rim.

I'd be glad to repeat the pictures with the P30 if you'd like, but I can't imagine that they would be any different.

I'd love to see something similar for the M&P, Glock, and 1911 that you have too, I think that will tell the whole story. It's not quite high speed photography, but I think that for the sake of this discussion, it's the next best thing.

Here are the pictures of the sequence (the second picture is when it gets "jumped" into the chamber after clearing the feed lips:

763

764

765

766

J.Ja

[LittleLebowski]

Before attacking the validity of an artillery man's opinion, I might suggest it is (as dubious as it is) the only cited "report" thus far.

I think I know this 0802 (online) and have corresponded with him. He's not being attacked; the notion of an 0802 being issued a MEU/SOC pistol is, same is if an 0321 was talking about 155mm artillery maintenance.

[jmjames]

Incidentally... on the ORIGINAL topic... I VERY much so "get" 1911's! They are gorgeous pieces of machinery with a rich, meaningful heritage. Their design and aftermarket parts availability makes them a tinkerer's dream gun. Even the nature of things like having to hand-fit a lot of parts... while something I will complain about and ding them on, there is a very real sense of pride and satisfaction in doing the work. In many, many ways they remind me of a classic Chevy muscle car.

When I had my bad experience with a 1911, I still loved it beyond what was reasonable (IMHO). I loved that I had custom ground the grip safety to fit the hammer and that no one noticed that it wasn't factory except those who were familiar with the standard size/shape of it. I loved that after I re-blued everything, it looked factory-fresh except a ding in the parkerizing that was there when I got it (even re-blued the barrel!). I loved that it took me 30 minutes to fully detail strip and re-assemble the first time... and a mere 5 minutes the last time. The last time I owned a piece of machinery that I felt so much pride in the work I put into it was a 1987 Monte Carlo SS 10 years ago.

As others have noted, the 1911 made me feel like a champ on the range, thanks to its ergonomics, full-metal frame, and easy trigger, and that was a stock, junk 1911! After I put in a trigger kit from C&S and their "trigger pull kit", it was a silky-smooth trigger disguised as a $400 paperweight. Loved it! If I had the time and money to get it to feed reliably, I'd probably be shooting a lot less (due to the cost of .45 compared to 9mm) and carrying that 1911.

If someone could make a 1911 in double stack 9mm that I felt was reliable, I'd be all over it. I haven't handled a BHP, but from limited use of CZ's and their variants, while I like them for "shooting" a lot, they aren't really the same (the triggers are wildly different...), and they have some horrendous characteristics, notable the frame mounted safety/decocker and the difficulty in racking the slide. In my mind, while the P30S and the P30LS are not 1911's, they come mighty close on the ergos. Indeed, it was the fact that I liked the 1911 ergos so much that had me looking at the HK45, and then eventually settling into the P30S.

J.Ja

[BLR]

I think I know this 0802 (online) and have corresponded with him. He's not being attacked; the notion of an 0802 being issued a MEU/SOC pistol is, same is if an 0321 was talking about 155mm artillery maintenance.

Sure. I get it. Was only brought up to counter the claim that everyone seems to be abandoning ship on the 1911, specifically the MEU(SOC) guns. He's in a better position to know than I, but you're right, he's not "straight from the horses mouth." But I don't have access to anyone else. Just a data point and nothing more.

Like I said, nothing I've said here is unequivocal or absolute in this thread.

Here is the crux of the matter: Everyone makes a 1911 "their way." Everyone makes 1911 parts "their way." And then they assemble them "their way." You see the result. Sometimes "their way" is the wrong way. If you can't tell what is "right" and what is "wrong" than the 1911 isn't for you. Or if you really don't care to learn the gun, which is a valid and reasonable choice, I'd steer clear. Didn't Vickers state once that, paraphrasing, "If you don't change the oil in your lawnmower, then the Glock is your gun." Or something to that effect?

With a Glock, you get it Gaston's way. Unless you tinker. And then you are in the 1911s boat.

1911s CAN be durable, reliable, accurate, and ergonomic all rolled up into one sexy pistol. All of mine are. But they can also be an aggravating money pit if you let them. Despite popular myth, 1911s don't require depot level overhaul every 5k rounds. If someone thinks so, I'd love to hear the logic behind it. As long as it's actual logic and not "a MEU wears them out in 5k, says my anonymous source." There are just WAY too many competitors out there running them without the trouble cited in this thread. Colt has sponsored shooters with over 100k rounds on guns with no breakages. 0802s TRS didn't receive anything but lube and cleaning until the extractor broke at 20k. Sounds durable to me. Mine are the same.

The price of entry into 1911 happiness is not money, rather it is being able to gauge how good your pistol and mags are. If even to a minimal degree. But the same can be said of any firearm (or machine). Which is why I'm here. I'm hear to learn. I learn by testing theories. I don't take anything said by anyone as holy gospel. Even if his last name is Vickers.

This thread has made me take a second look at all my 1911 related gear (as opposed to "stuff"). As well as a look at my other pistols. That's a good thing. A 1911 won't guarantee success. Remember when Langdon won the title with a Sig? Beating out the 1911s? That was skill. Not hardware. But on average, the 1911 is faster. That's why it rules the roost still in USPSA. But it won't beat skill. Skill takes thousands of rounds a year. Not plinking, but thousands of rounds of drills on top of drills.

[David Armstrong]

On a separate line of discussion -- which is ironic since I was wishing this thread dead just last night -- it has been my perception that >4" 1911s will cycle reliably regardless of how they're held (I used to demo this until I discovered that if you hold the 1911 lightly enough it will bouncefire, which is a little exciting). It was my experience with Glocks and short 1911s (both) that I could reliably get them to fail by holding them loosely. Do I misremember, or am I misperceiving, or is that a known fact sort of thing?
I didn't see this addressed, doctorpogo, but while I don't know how much of a known fact sort of thing it is I have seen (and done) the same sort of demo. I think maybe the bigger all-steel guns have enough mass to reduce the "limp wrist" issue.

[BLR]

[QUOTE=Sean M;71159]I have probably about $20k tied up into 1911's.

QUOTE]

Quick update.........

That should now read $25k tied up into 1911's.

This thread inspired me to pick up two more.


Interesting note on the 220. I shot one into extinction a few years ago, and one older model 226. Come to find out there was a maintenance schedule that I should have been following. As with most modern firearms.

Who knew?

Yeah, I've got obscene money in my 1911s too.

And that's funny right there.

David - yes. Any extra mass on frame will help "desensitize" a recoil operated pistol from grip issues, all else equal.

[Odin Bravo One]

[QUOTE=blr;71952][QUOTE=Sean M;71823]

Yeah, I've got obscene money in my 1911s too.



But I also look at it this way.........if ever I decide to sell all of my 1911's, I might be able to afford more machineguns. Of course, the GF thinks I already have enough machineguns. Psh.........thinks she knows about guns!

[TCinVA]

[QUOTE=blr;71952]
But I also look at it this way.........if ever I decide to sell all of my 1911's, I might be able to afford more machineguns. Of course, the GF thinks I already have enough machineguns. Psh.........thinks she knows about guns!

I'd honestly spend obscene money on 1911's before I would machine guns simply because I dislike dealing with the BATFE any more than is absolutely necessary.

...if I could find an MP5 for less than my car cost, though...

[BLR]

[QUOTE=blr;71952][QUOTE=Sean M;71823]

Yeah, I've got obscene money in my 1911s too.



But I also look at it this way.........if ever I decide to sell all of my 1911's, I might be able to afford more machineguns. Of course, the GF thinks I already have enough machineguns. Psh.........thinks she knows about guns!

That's your problem right there. Never discuss a firearms investment with a person who thinks you can have enough of anything.

The tippy top of my machine gun list: MG42.

The tippy top of my NFA gun list: Winchester M14.

[jmjames]

[QUOTE=Sean M;72021][QUOTE=blr;71952]

That's your problem right there. Never discuss a firearms investment with a person who thinks you can have enough of anything.


I learned that new pistol purchases will cost me a 50% overhead in "wife tax" unless she doesn't know about them. One of the really nice things about buying the P2000SK, is that my wife doesn't realize that it's NOT the P30 which she already knows about. She's seen it a number of times and hasn't yet asked me, "when did you get a new gun?" :D

J.Ja

[BLR]

[QUOTE=blr;72111][QUOTE=Sean M;72021]

I learned that new pistol purchases will cost me a 50% overhead in "wife tax" unless she doesn't know about them. One of the really nice things about buying the P2000SK, is that my wife doesn't realize that it's NOT the P30 which she already knows about. She's seen it a number of times and hasn't yet asked me, "when did you get a new gun?" :D

J.Ja

I tried real hard to like the P30. And USP. And P2000. And HK45. I really did. But $900 for a plastic gun is just crazy.

I dearly love the M&Ps though. $450 for a plastic gun is just about right. And now that you can get a M&P with a manual safety, I'll be getting one once I free up some non 1911 cash.

[TGS]

I tried real hard to like the P30. And USP. And P2000. And HK45. I really did. But $900 for a plastic gun is just crazy.

I dearly love the M&Ps though. $450 for a plastic gun is just about right. And now that you can get a M&P with a manual safety, I'll be getting one once I free up some non 1911 cash.

I don't see how plastic automatically denotes a lower value.......especially when that $900 plastic gun doesn't suffer from any of the QC or short-sighted design issues of the $450 plastic guns, nor the $1000+ metal guns.

I might be biased though ;)

[ToddG]

I have to agree. What it's made of shouldn't determine its value. Capability determines value.

[BLR]

You don't see how manufacturing demands influence cost? It's cheaper to injection mold a nylon frame around a stamped/MIM "block" than to broach out a magazine well, mill a dust cover, shape grip tangs, and otherwise mill out a receiver after forging from steel.

Value - no argument. But we are talking cost (at least I was), not value. Value is an individuals perspective. That's why Pre War Colt NM guns that can't (well, at least shouldn't) be shot still trade hands at huge prices.

[LittleLebowski]

You don't see how manufacturing demands influence cost? It's cheaper to injection mold a nylon frame around a stamped/MIM "block" than to broach out a magazine well, mill a dust cover, shape grip tangs, and otherwise mill out a receiver after forging from steel.


When you have a pistol that hasn't been cleaned for over 10k rounds, is so dry that it squeaks as it cycles, and shoots 2" groups at 25 yards, who cares what it's made of? (talking about Todd's HK45).

[ToddG]

You don't see how manufacturing demands influence cost?

And you're aware that cost:

isn't determined solely by material choices, and
isn't the only factor that determines price


... yes?

[BLR]

Of course.

If someone is happy with their HK, or whatever, cool. That's what makes this country so great. You have choices.

Not going to argue cost-price-value, as I just don't really have a leg to stand on. I buy "overly expensive" 1911s. So I'm not casting stones at anyone here about money changing hands for firearms. :D

But, you do realize you are (at least from my perspective) turning the cost argument on 1911s right around. Right?

[jmjames]

[QUOTE=jmjames;72131][QUOTE=blr;72111]

I tried real hard to like the P30. And USP. And P2000. And HK45. I really did. But $900 for a plastic gun is just crazy.

I dearly love the M&Ps though. $450 for a plastic gun is just about right. And now that you can get a M&P with a manual safety, I'll be getting one once I free up some non 1911 cash.

I hear ya. The bill of materials on an H&K can't be more than a few dollars different from what it is on a Glock or M&P, and I can't imagine that there's an extra $400 - $500 worth of craftsmanship involved. We know that the bill of materials on a 1911 is low enough to make a $400 pistol, and we know that a high end one has more expensive parts, and a lot more attention from skilled craftsmen, not just low paid folks in a sweatshop slapping them together. When you buy a good 1911, you know exactly why it costs more money. With a H&K, you know why they can sell it at a higher price (perception of higher value for a variety of reasons), but you know that they could sell it for a lot cheaper than they do.

J.Ja

[BLR]

[QUOTE=blr;72142][QUOTE=jmjames;72131]

I hear ya. The bill of materials on an H&K can't be more than a few dollars different from what it is on a Glock or M&P, and I can't imagine that there's an extra $400 - $500 worth of craftsmanship involved. We know that the bill of materials on a 1911 is low enough to make a $400 pistol, and we know that a high end one has more expensive parts, and a lot more attention from skilled craftsmen, not just low paid folks in a sweatshop slapping them together. When you buy a good 1911, you know exactly why it costs more money. With a H&K, you know why they can sell it at a higher price (perception of higher value for a variety of reasons), but you know that they could sell it for a lot cheaper than they do.

J.Ja

That was my logic. But, as pointed out, economics is not so straight forward. Especially import firearm economics. Todd and LL are quite correct.

[jmjames]

[QUOTE=jmjames;72171][QUOTE=blr;72142]

That was my logic. But, as pointed out, economics is not so straight forward. Especially import firearm economics. Todd and LL are quite correct.

The economics of firearms is total proof that any economic theory based on "rational agents" has little grounding in reality, ESPECIALLY once you get into the used gun market... or accessories. I'd love to see the price justification on, say, an M4 carry handle... or a magazine for anything that isn't a Glock... :D

J.Ja

[ToddG]

The bill of materials on an H&K can't be more than a few dollars different from what it is on a Glock or M&P, and I can't imagine that there's an extra $400 - $500 worth of craftsmanship involved.

Those are wild, unsupported, and in fact false assumptions. I've been directly involved in the bill of materials -to- product process for two different handgun companies. There are tremendously different costs for what may appear to the consumer as similar materials. For example, HK uses a steel for its pistol barrels that is made exclusively for them and I'd be willing to bet (though I cannot speak from experience) that it's harder to machine.

There are also engineering and testing costs to recoup. Did Glock invest the money to develop the first polymer handgun? Nope. That was HK. Did Glock invest the money to develop the first modern striker-fired handgun? Nope. That was HK.

Do you have any idea how much more HK tests new products compared to, say Glock? Gen4 fiasco, have you heard of it? They also do far more testing of each individual gun (and its component parts) before shipping them out. Those things all cost money. They don't make HK infallible, but it makes a difference.

Simple economics tells us that if they could double their sales by dropping their margins a bit, they'd do so. Their guns don't cost a lot because HK likes selling expensive guns. They cost a lot because they cost a lot to manufacture. For the ICE contract back in '04 which both SIG and HK won, both companies offered the absolutely craziest low price they could due to the promised quantities. My recollection is that HK was still at least a $100 more than SIG.

[jmjames]

Those are wild, unsupported, and in fact false assumptions. I've been directly involved in the bill of materials -to- product process for two different handgun companies. There are tremendously different costs for what may appear to the consumer as similar materials. For example, HK uses a steel for its pistol barrels that is made exclusively for them and I'd be willing to bet (though I cannot speak from experience) that it's harder to machine.

There are also engineering and testing costs to recoup. Did Glock invest the money to develop the first polymer handgun? Nope. That was HK. Did Glock invest the money to develop the first modern striker-fired handgun? Nope. That was HK.

Do you have any idea how much more HK tests new products compared to, say Glock? Gen4 fiasco, have you heard of it? They also do far more testing of each individual gun (and its component parts) before shipping them out. Those things all cost money. They don't make HK infallible, but it makes a difference.

Simple economics tells us that if they could double their sales by dropping their margins a bit, they'd do so. Their guns don't cost a lot because HK likes selling expensive guns. They cost a lot because they cost a lot to manufacture. For the ICE contract back in '04 which both SIG and HK won, both companies offered the absolutely craziest low price they could due to the promised quantities. My recollection is that HK was still at least a $100 more than SIG.

Those are some good points. I'm well aware that there are R&D and a zillion other overhead costs involved in it too... I was speaking strictly in terms of bill of materials and manufacturing costs. From a consumer's point of view, if you say, "gee, what's in this thing?" it's hard to see where the HK price comes from, and HK certainly does a poor job at marketing their special, unique advantages. If you look at the P30's page, for example, the only thing they say there which sounds "special sauce" on there is a brief mention of your endurance testing... at the very end of the article... with no special highlighting. As a customer without the insight that you've gained having worked in the industry, it is mighty tough to understand how or why HK is worth so much more than the others.

If I were a firearms maker, I'd be busting my rear to explain precisely how and why my guns were better than someone else's!

J.Ja

[BLR]

Do you have any idea how much more HK tests new products compared to, say Glock? Gen4 fiasco, have you heard of it? They also do far more testing of each individual gun (and its component parts) before shipping them out. Those things all cost money. They don't make HK infallible, but it makes a difference.

I think I have a pretty good grasp of materials costs and their associated influence on manufacturing. I'd be willing to put money on the idea that the actual materials don't play as much a role in cost as may be thought. The above quote is very likely where the cost differential lies. Development and testing. One end to the other. Which is why I quickly conceded by hastily reached "cost" perspective.

I'd also be willing to bet the exotic alloy used by HK isn't really exotic by anyone's opinion outside the firearms industry. The barrels are hammer forged, meaning they can't be that exotic. Exotic happens when we talk about powdered steels. Forging (especially cold forging) limits you to some basic steels. It may not be straight 4350, but it won't be significantly different.

A major cost contributor that I have seen with the HKs I've inspected is their HE finish vs. Tenifer. HE looks like a gas phase carbonitriding, where Tenifer is (I suspect) a salt based one. In this instance, gas trumps salt in performance, but with a significant cost penalty. Another significant contributor to the cost difference: how many G17s are sold for every P30? How many variances for the P30 compared to the G17?

[ToddG]

From a consumer's point of view, if you say, "gee, what's in this thing?" it's hard to see where the HK price comes from, and HK certainly does a poor job at marketing their special, unique advantages.

Preachin' to the choir, brother. HK is so utterly off base with its marketing that my head hurts just thinking about it. I once asked the company president to list some of the things that make HKs unique in terms of quality and performance, and he went on for twenty minutes. When I asked him why that list isn't on their website, he told me no one would care about all that. :mad:


I'd also be willing to bet the exotic alloy used by HK isn't really exotic by anyone's opinion outside the firearms industry.

I did not use the word exotic, I said exclusive. Some steels definitely do a better job at handling heat, erosion, etc. In particular, HK insists that its barrels be able to withstand an obstructed bullet test. Now whether the difference in cost is 0.1% or 100% I couldn't tell you.


HE looks like a gas phase carbonitriding, where Tenifer is (I suspect) a salt based one. In this instance, gas trumps salt in performance, but with a significant cost penalty.

So here's a great example of HK failing to brag in its marketing. Consumers consider Tenifer the greatest finish known to modern science. If HK actually has something that is better in terms of performance, they should be telling people. Especially if it costs more.


Another significant contributor to the cost difference: how many G17s are sold for every P30? How many variances for the P30 compared to the G17?

Both very good points.

[BLR]

You could replace exotic with exclusive. But sure. I get what you're saying and agree.

What it really boils down to is that, at least in my opinion, every platform has:
1. Warts
2. Advantages
3. Compromises
4. Proponents
5. Detractors

And generally:
1. Blanket statements are rarely true
2. There is always a different perspective
3. 1911s are superior to everything else (humor here!!!)

[jmjames]

Preachin' to the choir, brother. HK is so utterly off base with its marketing that my head hurts just thinking about it. I once asked the company president to list some of the things that make HKs unique in terms of quality and performance, and he went on for twenty minutes. When I asked him why that list isn't on their website, he told me no one would care about all that. :mad:

By definition, anyone even considering an HK over Glock or M&P HAS to care about it, otherwise they'd just get a quote from Glock and S&W in their favored caliber and size, and pick the lowest priced one! And SIG is in the exact same boat. It's hard to push a gun selling at a premium price without having a very explicit list of what is premium about it.

J.Ja

[BLR]

Preachin' to the choir, brother. HK is so utterly off base with its marketing that my head hurts just thinking about it. I once asked the company president to list some of the things that make HKs unique in terms of quality and performance, and he went on for twenty minutes. When I asked him why that list isn't on their website, he told me no one would care about all that. :mad:


So here's a great example of HK failing to brag in its marketing. Consumers consider Tenifer the greatest finish known to modern science. If HK actually has something that is better in terms of performance, they should be telling people. Especially if it costs more.



I think the HK pres is correct, but for the wrong reason. Honestly, how many people would get the gas vs salt process? Precious few. Also think about the gun market. It is so opinion/urban myth driven, education would be like Sisphyus and his boulder. Just look at the whole MIM stupidity with the 1911 crowd. It's not quality vs. cheap, it's MIM vs whatever.

I think the discussion on 1911s has petered out though....

[jslaker]

Another thing to consider when it comes to HKs compared to other plastic guns is that in a SFA weapon like the Glock, your connector, disconnector, sear, etc are essentially combined into a couple of stamped steel parts. On the HKs, you're talking about a half-dozen separate parts, most of which are machined. They may both be wrapped by a plastic frame, but the HKs scream a more complicated, difficult-to-manufacture design.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Robinson

Hopefully I'll be adding a post to the 2K challenge thread in the next few weeks describing how my 9mm 1911 has performed. It won't mean much in the big picture, but it's another data point. I'm at 1,670 rounds currently with zero stoppages, malfunctions, etc... -- no cleaning or lube since right before I started.

The test certainly won't lead me to make any broad claims about the platform either way.


That's pretty impressive; looking forward to reading it.

I just posted the results in the challenge thread.

[Tinygnat219]

I get it, I sometimes carry one, but rarely. I find that the Glock 19 / 17 series of pistols is just fine for my everyday needs. Still, I have found the 1911 can be a fun thing to have.

Here's my "moped" 1911 in 9MM. It's a Rock Island Tactical model with the Novak Style sight dovetails, skeletonized hammer, blah blah. It's basically called the "moped" for the same reason as one would have a moped for: having fun until someone saw you riding one. The only thing I have added are the Rick Hinderer 1911 GP10 grips. They are MUCH improved over the wooden stocks that come with the Rock Island. This is strictly a range toy for when I want to shoot something slick and light. It doesn't eat hollowpoints very well, but it'll shoot Wolf 9MM 115 grain FMJ all day.

http://www.firearmsforum.com/I41612.jpg

Here is my "classic" Officer's ACP 1911. It's a beauty that hasn't been shot yet. I have the original factory box for this one as well. It will be shot at the range, but not carried. There are inherent design issues with the Officer sized 1911s that simply don't do well and I've seen too many of these fail to recommend the design, no matter who they are from.

http://www.firearmsforum.com/I44105.jpg

Last but not least is what I consider the answer to what I consider the limitations of the 1911 design (weight, and capacity). This is the Kimber BP10 Polymer double stack 1911. It takes 10 or 13 round double stack magazines, is light, and laser accurate when I do my part (doncha just HATE that gunhack phrase?)

http://www.firearmsforum.com/I41614.jpg

[10mm]

I would carry my 10mm RZ-10 or my Kimber 45acp and not worry about anything.They both shoot 1 1/2 or better at 25 yards and run flawless.I wish I could afford a nighthawk 10mm.Not that my lower priced 1911 won't work,they ran fine from the beginning.Just would like to have one that is super tight and refined.

[JAD]

I have to agree. What it's made of shouldn't determine its value. Capability determines value.

Not to disagree too much, but perceived capability determines value. An Heirloom 1911 is not five times as capable as a P30; but there are lots of people who pay $4500 for an Heirloom. Substitute 'IWC' and 'Timex' if you like.

And your proof -- that HKs must cost more because they don't discount them as far, even if it costs them business -- is a good one but not flawless. There are margin chances that I in my professional capacity take when I'm starting a program that my German competitors simply won't do, and at the same time I get pounded into the SAND by my Korean buddies. The Koreans, and I, sometimes wind up living skinny when things don't go exactly as we'd hoped; nothing like praying your customer makes a design rev and drops you from the project.

[ToddG]

Not to disagree too much, but perceived capability determines value. An Heirloom 1911 is not five times as capable as a P30; but there are lots of people who pay $4500 for an Heirloom. Substitute 'IWC' and 'Timex' if you like.

I think both analogies are flawed in the context of the disagreement which was whether frame material should determine value.

I cannot speak for Jason, but I don't think he'd say you're paying for an Heirloom 1911 because you want it to be more reliable than a P30. There are a lot of other factors that make one of his guns worth many times more a P30, and for people who value those factors, his guns are worth every penny. If they just wanted the cheapest gun that would be acceptably accurate and acceptably reliable, $4-5k isn't what they'd be spending.

Ditto the IWC/Timex thing: in many cases and for many people, the Timex will work better, longer, with less hassle. People who get the IWC aren't doing it because they want the most accurate, durable timepiece known to man. They're buying it because they want an accurate, durable high end watch. I've never met a WIS who thinks his Rolex/Omega/IWC/Panerai or whatever is better for simply keeping time than a G-shock. But the WIS wants something different (or more) than just simply keeping time.

[Joe in PNG]

As a bass guitar player, I can get:
-A Squire Jazz Bass for about $250
-A Fender Standard Jazz for about $800
-A Fender Custom Shop Jazz bass for around $2,000
-A Vintage 60's Jazz for $6,000
or even a new Alembic Series II for $20,000...

And, truth be told, there is little difference in sound between the lot of them... but there is something about a custom or vintage...

[ToddG]

And I totally get that. Wanting something for more than its performance capability is fine.

[SecondsCount]

And I totally get that. Wanting something for more than its performance capability is fine.

OK, I want to know who the 1911 fanboy is who captured our Todd and signed in using his credentials?

First the test gun choice and now this statement. :confused:

Where is LittleLebowski? We need him to set this straight before it gets out of hand. ;)

[Tamara]

Another thing to consider when it comes to HKs compared to other plastic guns is that in a SFA weapon like the Glock, your connector, disconnector, sear, etc are essentially combined into a couple of stamped steel parts. On the HKs, you're talking about a half-dozen separate parts, most of which are machined. They may both be wrapped by a plastic frame, but the HKs scream a more complicated, difficult-to-manufacture design.

Actually, HK is a pioneer of using stampings in firearms manufacturing. On the old traditional roller-locked HK longarms, the entire fricking receiver was a welded stamping, which is why the G3 can be built under license in countries whose local industrial base barely supports a thriving cookware industry.

There are a lot of hidden costs behind just saying a part is "stamped" or "MIM" or what-have-you. For instance, where was it stamped? In house, on your own stamping machines, from steel stock that you bought specifically because it was optimal for that part? Or was it stamped by Dixie Joe's Greasy Bar & Grill And Part Time Machine Shop, who offered you a better cost-per-thousand bid than the company from whom you bought the last batch?

[ToddG]

OK, I want to know who the 1911 fanboy is who captured our Todd and signed in using his credentials?

I am far from a 1911 fanboy, but when someone starts talking about expensive watches that don't tell time as well as a $25 Casio, I'm as guilty as the next guy.

My main gripe with the 1911 has always been simple: they're substantially more expensive for a given level of performance and require far more knowledge and TLC to keep at that level of performance.

They're also beautiful, incredibly customizable, and shootable. They have a storied history. But too many people want to believe -- and are willing to convince themselves -- that a Glock-priced 1911 is just as good as that Springfield Custom, Wilson, or Les Baer. And I've seen guns from all of those companies have problems in classes.

[NickA]

OK, I want to know who the 1911 fanboy is who captured our Todd and signed in using his credentials?

First the test gun choice and now this statement. :confused:

Where is LittleLebowski? We need him to set this straight before it gets out of hand. ;)

If the first action shots in the test show a Timex on his wrist, we're going to have to contact the authorities.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2