What "Elite" Units/Organizations Currently Use a Single Stack 1911 .45 [Archive]

GOP

04-10-2012, 10:53 AM

Someone correct me if my line of thinking is wrong, as I am certainly not in an "ELITE UNIT", but why would any of those dudes use 1911's?

Most of the places we are fighting in these days are hell holes, and some of our most elite units will spend days in terrible conditions in the freaking Hindu Kush...in snow and/or rain. Basically, the types of conditions that would cause any gun to fail, much less a gun that is known to fail after being properly cleaned and lubed...using match grade ammo...in perfect weather...on a square range. The 1911 holds 5-9 less rounds and weighs more. That may not be a huge deal stateside (see the "how many rounds" thread hosted by David Armstrong), but in an environment where I am purposely looking for a fight carrying a 30 round carbine and 4-5 30 round mags, where I will only use a pistol if my rifle goes down, having more ammo seems like a major deal to me. Also, while not much more weight as a whole, I would probably prefer not to hump the other 2-3lbs (with ammo/mags) up the side of the mountainous pass on the Paki/Afghan border, as my oxygen, ruck, rifle, and other necessary equipment is probably heavy enough as it is. Not to mention that having to sprint with all of this gear while being shot at isn't fun. Yes, a 1911 is GENERALLY more accurate (maybe by 1" at 25m IF that), but that is pretty much negated when you are dealing with some of the finest shooters on the planet who get thousands of rounds of ammo to practice and the finest instruction our government can provide.

Maybe my line of thinking is wrong, I certainly can't speak for anyone in special operations at all, much less a unit like ST6 or Delta. In my unexperienced mind, though, I think I'd rather have a H&K, Glock, Sig, M&P, or PPQ. If I wanted a .45, I'm not sure how I'd come to the conclusion of picking a 1911 over the HK45.

I think it is pretty useless what an elite unit gives their guys, as my threat matrix is completely different. Those guys will generally go into combat with a rifle and other super highly trained buddies. It is most likely that I would be the 'victim' of a attempted mugging while by myself in my flip flops at the 7-11 at 3am, where my brain is struggling to decide between fruit loops or fruity pebbles.

LittleLebowski

04-10-2012, 10:59 AM

Someone correct me if my line of thinking is wrong, as I am certainly not in an "ELITE UNIT", but why would any of those dudes use 1911's?

Most of the places we are fighting in these days are hell holes, and some of our most elite units will spend days in terrible conditions in the freaking Hindu Kush...in snow and/or rain. Basically, the types of conditions that would cause any gun to fail, much less a gun that is known to fail after being properly cleaned and lubed...using match grade ammo...in perfect weather...on a square range. The 1911 holds 5-9 less rounds and weighs more. That may not be a huge deal stateside (see the "how many rounds" thread hosted by David Armstrong), but in an environment where I am purposely looking for a fight carrying a 30 round carbine and 4-5 30 round mags, where I will only use a pistol if my rifle goes down, having more ammo seems like a major deal to me. Also, while not much more weight as a whole, I would probably prefer not to hump the other 2-3lbs (with ammo/mags) up the side of the mountainous pass on the Paki/Afghan border, as my oxygen, ruck, rifle, and other necessary equipment is probably heavy enough as it is. Not to mention that having to sprint with all of this gear while being shot at isn't fun. Yes, a 1911 is GENERALLY more accurate (maybe by 1" at 25m IF that), but that is pretty much negated when you are dealing with some of the finest shooters on the planet who get thousands of rounds of ammo to practice and the finest instruction our government can provide.

Maybe my line of thinking is wrong, I certainly can't speak for anyone in special operations at all, much less a unit like ST6 or Delta. In my unexperienced mind, though, I think I'd rather have a H&K, Glock, Sig, M&P, or PPQ. If I wanted a .45, I'm not sure how I'd come to the conclusion of picking a 1911 over the HK45.

Institutional inertia. Colonels running around braying about "the 1911 being handed down to JMB from god," nonsense like that. A lot of the guys in the recon community simply do not know anything but the 1911. They know they're good with it and due to the 1911's trigger, have a hard time acclimating to anything else.

True story: I toured the Force armory around 2000. As a young grunt Corporal, I was in awe of the Barretts, 1911s, shelved MP5s (Force sucked and HK hates them). I looked at a pile of 1911s (literally a pile) in awe and said to the harried looking Force armorer "must be an armorer's dream."

His reply was "more like an armorer's nightmare."

TCinVA

04-10-2012, 11:18 AM

Well...you pretty much nailed it.

When a lot of those elite units were spun up the 1911 was selected for a number of reasons like:

- There were already a bunch of 1911s in inventory that could be customized/reworked more easily than purchasing another handgun entirely
- The gun world had not yet figured out that an extra .10 of bullet diameter didn't mean much in handguns
- There weren't a whole lot of really good semi-auto handguns on the market
- The 1911 was the "serious gun guy's" handgun

As those elite units started to shoot the guns a lot they found out that they required a hell of a lot of TLC to keep going. You needed competent armorers to maintain the guns...and that led to a practice of issuing multiple handguns because it became obvious that at least one would be at the armorer's bench getting worked on while the other one was actively being used.

Semi-auto handguns improved significantly to the point where now you can spend considerably less than 1/2 the price for a weapon that is lighter, holds more ammunition, requires minimal attention from the armorer to keep running, and that is sufficiently generic that you could probably have a vending machine in the FOB where you punch in B2 and get another one if the one you have broke for some reason.

Ken Hackathorn once mentioned to a group at a class that when he got his first Glock he opened the tupperware case, held the pistol, and remarked that this was the first handgun he'd ever seen that came from the box with zero pride of ownership. The concept of the pistol as a generic appliance for launching bullets had arrived...and as we've discovered over the years it has a lot of merit. That seems to be the trend among elite units, going to weapons that serve as useful appliances for launching lots of bullets so that the people in those units can spend their time and resources dealing with the bad people who need to be dealt with rather than fiddling around with their equipment.

When the pistol itself isn't as important as the mission you're trying to accomplish with it, you tend to want something that just works. Think about the concept in relation to cars: Sure, the idea of an old Ferrari is fantastic...but what if you had to depend on that thing to get to work? To take your sick child to the emergency room? To get groceries? About the third or fourth time it overheated in traffic and cost you $7,000.00 to fix you'd be in search of a used Camry that will just work. Same is true with pistols.

JHC

04-10-2012, 11:24 AM

Someone correct me if my line of thinking is wrong, as I am certainly not in an "ELITE UNIT", but why would any of those dudes use 1911's?

.

One might end up adopting a FDE Glock 22 (LAV quoted) with FDE 20 round "sticks" (LF 2+2=4) and a hot rodded connector (PF discussions).
Or later ditch the connector.

David Armstrong

04-10-2012, 01:06 PM

from GOP:
Someone correct me if my line of thinking is wrong, as I am certainly not in an "ELITE UNIT", but why would any of those dudes use 1911's?
For the same reason pretty much anyone selects any handgun....They think it is the best solution to their problem. They argue the merits of steel over plastic, big slow bullets versus small fast bullets, capacity over ergonomics, and a host of other items that really don't matter much except in vary narrow and uncommon circumstances and declare a winner.

Byron

04-10-2012, 01:57 PM

They argue the merits of steel over plastic, big slow bullets versus small fast bullets, capacity over ergonomics, and a host of other items that really don't matter much except in vary narrow and uncommon circumstances and declare a winner.
All due respect, but can you please stop posting your "differences don't really matter" position to every thread that you come across? It was tiresome when it was in the wheelgun thread. It was painful in the capacity thread. Now it just seems like the only thing you want to contribute to any discussion.

Let's not have this thread devolve into a semantics argument about what "better" means, or whether the difference between plastic and steel is different enough to actually be different, or whether one thing can ever be better than another thing. It's making me dizzy.

Wendell

04-10-2012, 02:09 PM

:( That time of the month, huh?

JV_

04-10-2012, 02:13 PM

Keep the posts on topic.

JHC

04-10-2012, 02:27 PM

A recently retired Army 1SG who used to be pretty active on a few forums and has attended quite of few high end pistol and carbine classes plus trained with members of LAVs former unit before and after leaving active duty used to relate how the members of conventional and "special" units could quickly agree on a good enough carbine (M4 for instance) but argue non-stop about which was the ultimate combat pistol. That'll probably never change.

I think all the MARSOC units are still 1911 and within the last year I seem to recall reading they were soliciting proposals in order to buy more pistols with spec's that leaned strongly towards more 1911s. I think LL could have been speaking to that example or others with his comments about grand history and tradition.

TCinVA

04-10-2012, 02:29 PM

A recently retired Army 1SG who used to be pretty active on a few forums and has attended quite of few high end pistol and carbine classes plus trained with members of LAVs former unit before and after leaving active duty used to relate how the members of conventional and "special" units could quickly agree on a good enough carbine (M4 for instance) but argue non-stop about which was the ultimate combat pistol. That'll probably never change.

...and it's fairly ironic given how little importance the pistol has in their arsenal relative to all the other equipment they use.

Tamara

04-10-2012, 02:33 PM

Someone correct me if my line of thinking is wrong, as I am certainly not in an "ELITE UNIT", but why would any of those dudes use 1911's?

Don't forget that a few of the outfits most closely associated with 1911s in the past have "hostage rescue" in their job descriptions, if not right in their unit names. I think that may have something to do with their historical institutional bias for crazy accuracy from a sidearm.

Also, and I'm shooting in the dark, here, but somebody counting bad guys from a hide in a swampy desert on top of a mountain in the jungle is probably going to weight their handgun priorities differently than somebody shooting a hostage-taker in a downtown bank lobby.

jetfire

04-10-2012, 02:41 PM

a swampy desert on top of a mountain in the jungle

I lol'd.

ford.304

04-10-2012, 02:44 PM

...and it's fairly ironic given how little importance the pistol has in their arsenal relative to all the other equipment they use.

Pretty sure that's what lets them get away with it.

ToddG

04-10-2012, 03:45 PM

Pretty sure that's what lets them get away with it.

Exactly this. Having dealt first hand with a number of these units/teams in relation to their sidearm selection, they basically fall into two groups:

Give me something that works.
Give me something that sets me apart from all the other people in my organization/department/branch.

Given that the organization/department/branch probably already spent tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars selecting its general issue sidearm, (1) is often hard to justify. But everyone wants their own special badge of honor.

JSGlock34

04-10-2012, 05:32 PM

I think all the MARSOC units are still 1911 and within the last year I seem to recall reading they were soliciting proposals in order to buy more pistols with spec's that leaned strongly towards more 1911s. I think LL could have been speaking to that example or others with his comments about grand history and tradition.

Yep - the USMC is supposedly nearing a decision on selecting a commercial off the shelf 1911 to equip MARSOC units (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/02/marine-corps-to-decide-on-new-45-caliber-pistol-022112/). The Springfield Armory MC Operator and the Colt Rail Gun are competing for the 'M45' contract. Alas, 101 years after the 1911 was adopted by the US Army, we're holding a competition to select one...

Certainly the Marines need a new sidearm to replace the thoroughly shot-to-pieces 'MEU(SOC)' 1911s that they have been rebuilding for the past few decades (intermingled with the occasional tiny procurement of COTS Springfield Armory or Kimber pistols). However, I'd have thought they'd move to a more modern design that would permit replacement of small parts without armorer fitting and intervention. Why would you select a secondary weapon with such a logistical burden?

Institutional inertia at work, perhaps?

Comedian

04-10-2012, 07:48 PM

Don't forget that a few of the outfits most closely associated with 1911s in the past have "hostage rescue" in their job descriptions, if not right in their unit names. I think that may have something to do with their historical institutional bias for crazy accuracy from a sidearm.

Also, and I'm shooting in the dark, here, but somebody counting bad guys from a hide in a swampy desert on top of a mountain in the jungle is probably going to weight their handgun priorities differently than somebody shooting a hostage-taker in a downtown bank lobby.

True. The choice should be mission based.

Odin Bravo One

04-10-2012, 09:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWeVbKwrdGs

Steven C.

04-10-2012, 11:35 PM

Not all that many, anymore, I guess. LAPD SWAT and FBI HRT/SWAT...

Of course, this is a line of thinking that I have gotten out of touch with over the years. I mean, it used to be a Very Big Deal to me that I was carrying zomg teh exact same pistol as FBI HRT! Now I'm carrying a gun just like the one issued by... by... um... I don't know. Or care, really. Maybe the Mall of America's elite Food Court Team 6 issues the M&P 9? Whatever; it's all good. ;)

I am not interested in this line of thinking so I can mimic some elite unit, but rather because it seems that the paradigm has shifted. Delta/CAG seems to have shifted to the G22, as have many federal teams. I am not sure if this was based on "more rounds on board," logistics (less skilled gunsmithing required), or perhaps, as I read in an internet rumor, it has to do with large procurement contracts for .40 through DHS and Coast Guard (this last predated the recent procurement contracts which are currently the source of internet rumor).

Further, Glock has come to dominate the competition world in terms of sheer numbers represented.

In my own shooting evolution, I started with 1911's based on the romanticism and mystique promoted by many semi-custom houses. I hated Glock, based on my own snobbery, though I had very little experience with them. They were simply too pedestrian. Out of desire for a 9mm, I bought and began using a Gen3 G17 and immediately recognized the advantages of reliability, ease of maintenance, weight and simplicity. It was really an eye opener and I wonder if many of the units that have made the switch had similar, though collective, epiphanies. Alternatively, I wonder if the preference for more rounds on board hasn't been the deciding factor.

Steven C.

04-10-2012, 11:36 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWeVbKwrdGs

Thanks for your S.M.E. input.:p

Steven C.

04-10-2012, 11:54 PM

For the same reason pretty much anyone selects any handgun....They think it is the best solution to their problem. They argue the merits of steel over plastic, big slow bullets versus small fast bullets, capacity over ergonomics, and a host of other items that really don't matter much except in vary narrow and uncommon circumstances and declare a winner.

Carrying any sort of handgun doesn't matter "except in vary [sic] narrow and uncommon circumstances." The the need for a handgun is a statistical anomaly. Why try to predict what an "average" anomaly might be, rather than carry enough gun to fight effectively?

KevH

04-11-2012, 01:02 AM

I haven't been hanging out on the internet that much lately so I've missed a lot of posts on this forum, but I saw this one and felt compelled to reply.

There are still a lot of 1911's running around in select military units where guys can choose their own guns. I've had the privelage of being able to talk to quite a few guys recently (read that in the past year) and I'm here to tell you the 1911 is alive and well.

The 1911 in the LE community is also alive and well and I would say increasing rather than decreasing in numbers.

I've been running various 1911's for about fourteen years now (as well as Sigs and Glocks). Some have been fantastic and some have plain sucked. What I can tell you is that a properly setup 1911 (usually a Colt) will be as reliable or more reliable than just about any pistol out there and when it starts to wear it can simply be rebuilt...and rebuilt...and rebuilt...and rebuilt. I hate Kimber and the amount of dickery that has been done to the platform in recent years (and past years as well). A Colt base gun with some minimal tuning can compete with any "modern" (read that polymer) pistol out there.

The 1911 in the special operations community and civillian tactical team community is alive and well and not going anywhere.

Steven C.

04-11-2012, 01:10 AM

...snip
There are still a lot of 1911's running around in select military units where guys can choose their own guns. I've had the privelage of being able to talk to quite a few guys recently (read that in the past year) and I'm here to tell you the 1911 is alive and well.
snip...

Can you name the units/agencies?

TCinVA

04-11-2012, 06:55 AM

The 1911, for all its faults, still has a mystique to it that will ensure people are still carrying it even if Jesus Himself showed up tomorrow and told everyone that there was no rational reason for it while taking a break from healing blind children.

Some people just like 1911's. Some people will see cool guys with 1911's and will want 1911's because the cool guys have them. Some people will see the gun porn and want 1911's if for no other reason than because they look bleeping spectacular in the pages of American Handgunner.

...and keep in mind I say this as a dude who actually asked Ken Hackathorn if I could fondle his genuine ivory-gripped full-house Novak custom...because that''s how much of a 1911 geek I am.

jlw

04-11-2012, 07:17 AM

"Who is using them?" and "Why use them?" are two vastly different discussions.

1911s are authorized in my agency and they are provided to SRT members that want them (not that I include us in the 'elite operator' category). We have a retired, legit tier 1, been in the soup guy that is helping train our team. Some of you would recognize his name if I were to post it. He carries a Glock.

David Armstrong

04-11-2012, 10:57 AM

All due respect, but can you please stop posting your "differences don't really matter" position to every thread that you come across? It was tiresome when it was in the wheelgun thread. It was painful in the capacity thread. Now it just seems like the only thing you want to contribute to any discussion.

Let's not have this thread devolve into a semantics argument about what "better" means, or whether the difference between plastic and steel is different enough to actually be different, or whether one thing can ever be better than another thing. It's making me dizzy.
With equal due respect, see http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3817-Rules-Baiting-and-Personal-Attacks

The question was posed: "Someone correct me if my line of thinking is wrong, as I am certainly not in an "ELITE UNIT", but why would any of those dudes use 1911's?" I expressed my answer to that question, and will be more than happy to discuss that if you wish.

JV_

04-11-2012, 11:19 AM

All due respect, but

With equal due respect

Perhaps my post (#18) wasn't clear - so let me clarify.

Keep this thread on topic, avoid personal attacks, and let the staff handle the policing.

GOP

04-11-2012, 11:20 AM

I promise, I'm not trying to open up this can of worms, and I truly don't know the answer. As someone who doesn't run a 1911, I have to ask. Is a 1911 significantly more accurate than other modern polymer guns? In real life (I.e. a human holding the gun), do they group that much better? I have no problem dropping rounds on a 3x5 or 5" bull at 25m with a PPQ. Is a 1911 that much more capable? I truly don't know. Maybe a 1911 is more capable at distance than a 9mm due to the .45 (I don't know much about ballistics). I ask this because there must be a reason HR units like a 1911 for that role

jetfire

04-11-2012, 11:41 AM

I promise, I'm not trying to open up this can of worms, and I truly don't know the answer. As someone who doesn't run a 1911, I have to ask. Is a 1911 significantly more accurate than other modern polymer guns?

A factory, off the shelf 1911? Probably not, no. A custom built 1911 made by a legit gunsmif? Likely yes. Although IIRC, Todd's HK45 was ridiculously accurate, so even then maybe not.

JHC

04-11-2012, 11:43 AM

I promise, I'm not trying to open up this can of worms, and I truly don't know the answer. As someone who doesn't run a 1911, I have to ask. Is a 1911 significantly more accurate than other modern polymer guns? In real life (I.e. a human holding the gun), do they group that much better? I have no problem dropping rounds on a 3x5 or 5" bull at 25m with a PPQ. Is a 1911 that much more capable? I truly don't know. Maybe a 1911 is more capable at distance than a 9mm due to the .45 (I don't know much about ballistics). I ask this because there must be a reason HR units like a 1911 for that role

"Mechanical precision" - wise in my experience with 10 1911s (but only two nice ones; TRP and custom) and approaching two dozen Glocks, the plastic guns can run with most 1911s. But and it's a big BUT the trigger on a 1911 makes it a good bit easier to deliver on what accuracy potential there is.

cutter

04-11-2012, 11:45 AM

ToddG

04-11-2012, 11:49 AM

SFOD-D, no
FBI HRT, varies (increasingly "no")
FBI SWAT, varies

Changes in red.

David Armstrong

04-11-2012, 01:08 PM

Carrying any sort of handgun doesn't matter "except in vary [sic] narrow and uncommon circumstances." The the need for a handgun is a statistical anomaly. Why try to predict what an "average" anomaly might be, rather than carry enough gun to fight effectively?
I'm sure that each agency, unit, and individual who picks a gun will tell you their gun is enough to fight effectively, even though each will pick a different gun and will argue their pick is better than the next guy's pick. If there was a consensus we'd all be carrying the same thing for the most part.

JHC

04-11-2012, 01:12 PM

IMO the Pat McNamara quote is quite profound: "The pistol is your secondary, until it's your primary." And when the secondary, has become you're primary your probably pretty particular about it. Hence the energy that is poured into them.

ToddG

04-11-2012, 01:46 PM

And when the secondary, has become you're primary your probably pretty particular about it. Hence the energy that is poured into them.

That would make sense if those units/agencies/teams put as much time and energy into training with the secondary as they do selecting it. But almost universally they do not.

JHC

04-11-2012, 01:58 PM

That would make sense if those units/agencies/teams put as much time and energy into training with the secondary as they do selecting it. But almost universally they do not.

SFOD-D was famous for shooting a million rounds of .45 ACP a year. And they were not that large of an org. Are they the outlier or maybe that has all changed.

Le Français

04-11-2012, 02:01 PM

IMO the Pat McNamara quote is quite profound: "The pistol is your secondary, until it's your primary."

Apparently, though, he likes the 1911 for serious social work (with a FLGR, no less).

ToddG

04-11-2012, 02:05 PM

SFOD-D was famous for shooting a million rounds of .45 ACP a year. And they were not that large of an org.

Even if it was only 200 guys (it's bigger than that), 1M per year works out to just 5,000 rounds per shooter. While that's certainly a lot more than most teams, it's far less than the average serious shooters will go through. That's not a slam on the unit, just another example of how low pistol training is, by necessity, on their list of priorities.

TCinVA

04-11-2012, 02:46 PM

I promise, I'm not trying to open up this can of worms, and I truly don't know the answer. As someone who doesn't run a 1911, I have to ask. Is a 1911 significantly more accurate than other modern polymer guns?

If built properly, they certainly can be. A properly built 1911 can be a superbly accurate handgun...but as Caleb pointed out, a properly built Plastic Pistol Appliance can also be a superbly accurate handgun.

In real life (I.e. a human holding the gun), do they group that much better?

There you hit on a valuable bit of information about the 1911: A 2.5 pound handgun with a 4 pound short-travel trigger can cover for a world of sins in the trigger manipulation department. They were used in a certain elite Army unit for a long time primarily because, and this is a direct quote from an individual who was in charge of small arms training for that unit, "they're easy to shoot." I carried a 1911 for a very long time because I found it was stupid easy to make shots with. I took my Les Baer through a course at Blackwater USA (back when they were Blackwater for the first time and didn't have a contracting business) where I was the lone little civilian in a class full of SWAT guys and the dudes who will show up to kill you if you try to steal a nuclear weapon. All had more training and experience than me. All were in better shape than me. All had double stack pistols and didn't have to reload even half as often as I did. I beat the pants off of all of them on stress course after stress course because even with my deplorable level of skill, every time I put the yellow front sight on a target and pulled the trigger, I made a hit. I merely had to think that I wanted the gun to go off and it did, and the steel gave audible affirmation that the job had been done.

I wasn't a good shooter...the gun just made it look like I was.

The price for that was when everyone else was out at dinner, I was in my room with my pistol detail stripped carefully cleaning and lubricating it. I lubed it three times a day every day of the five day course. I changed recoil springs and mag springs during the course because it was over 3,000 rounds for the course. I re-tensioned the extractor. My gun ran extremely well, but I took great pains to keep it happy...and that was just five days of shooting.

When I started looking to buy a second handgun to back up my expensive 1911 (because I tried the less expensive 1911 route and found nothing but heartache and woe) I began to realize that having to spend a minimum of 2 grand on a pistol just so I could have a hope of hitting something with it was a pretty bad way to do business...so I started buying appliance pistols and started to actually work on my shooting skill. I liked the 1911 better than anything else because I could put bullets where I wanted them better with that pistol than with anything else. So for me at that skill level, there was a significant accuracy advantage to the gun. It was the pistol I sucked the least with. If I had to, say, go on an airliner and shoot terrorists 8 inches above the head of innocent passengers and didn't have the time to go much beyond that skill level, I'd have taken the 1911 in a heartbeat.

For me at a higher skill level, there's no accuracy advantage whatsoever in terms of results on the target. Now I use a pistol that holds more bullets, that I clean maybe a couple of times in a year and just happily keeps firing rounds if give it even minimal lubrication and attention.

TGS

04-11-2012, 03:08 PM

Even if it was only 200 guys (it's bigger than that), 1M per year works out to just 5,000 rounds per shooter. While that's certainly a lot more than most teams, it's far less than the average serious shooters will go through. That's not a slam on the unit, just another example of how low pistol training is, by necessity, on their list of priorities.

I'd be extremely surprised......as in utterly flabbergasted....if SFOD-D was only shooting 5000 rounds or so per shooter, per year. Especially when you have guys like retired SgtMaj Eric L Haney talking about specifics of their pistol training, and the amounts they shot.

Every single dude I know from the USMC special operations community ranging from 20 years ago to today, has easily done more than that in a couple days. Talk to anyone who's been through a Stone Bay shoot package. I know people in that community who've shot more than that in their MEUSOC 1911's as part of skills maintenance while in country over a period of 4 months. A fiscal quarter could see 30,000+ rounds through a single MEUSOC 1911.

ford.304

04-11-2012, 03:16 PM

If built properly, they certainly can be. A properly built 1911 can be a superbly accurate handgun...but as Caleb pointed out, a properly built Plastic Pistol Appliance can also be a superbly accurate handgun.

There you hit on a valuable bit of information about the 1911: A 2.5 pound handgun with a 4 pound short-travel trigger can cover for a world of sins in the trigger manipulation department. They were used in a certain elite Army unit for a long time primarily because, and this is a direct quote from an individual who was in charge of small arms training for that unit, "they're easy to shoot." I carried a 1911 for a very long time because I found it was stupid easy to make shots with. I took my Les Baer through a course at Blackwater USA (back when they were Blackwater for the first time and didn't have a contracting business) where I was the lone little civilian in a class full of SWAT guys and the dudes who will show up to kill you if you try to steal a nuclear weapon. All had more training and experience than me. All were in better shape than me. All had double stack pistols and didn't have to reload even half as often as I did. I beat the pants off of all of them on stress course after stress course because even with my deplorable level of skill, every time I put the yellow front sight on a target and pulled the trigger, I made a hit. I merely had to think that I wanted the gun to go off and it did, and the steel gave audible affirmation that the job had been done.

I wasn't a good shooter...the gun just made it look like I was.

The price for that was when everyone else was out at dinner, I was in my room with my pistol detail stripped carefully cleaning and lubricating it. I lubed it three times a day every day of the five day course. I changed recoil springs and mag springs during the course because it was over 3,000 rounds for the course. I re-tensioned the extractor. My gun ran extremely well, but I took great pains to keep it happy...and that was just five days of shooting.

When I started looking to buy a second handgun to back up my expensive 1911 (because I tried the less expensive 1911 route and found nothing but heartache and woe) I began to realize that having to spend a minimum of 2 grand on a pistol just so I could have a hope of hitting something with it was a pretty bad way to do business...so I started buying appliance pistols and started to actually work on my shooting skill. I liked the 1911 better than anything else because I could put bullets where I wanted them better with that pistol than with anything else. So for me at that skill level, there was a significant accuracy advantage to the gun. It was the pistol I sucked the least with. If I had to, say, go on an airliner and shoot terrorists 8 inches above the head of innocent passengers and didn't have the time to go much beyond that skill level, I'd have taken the 1911 in a heartbeat.

For me at a higher skill level, there's no accuracy advantage whatsoever in terms of results on the target. Now I use a pistol that holds more bullets, that I clean maybe a couple of times in a year and just happily keeps firing rounds if give it even minimal lubrication and attention.

This stuff needs to be stickied. One of the best explanations I have ever read for both why someone might still reasonably choose to shoot 1911's, and why they really probably shouldn't.

Question for you, TCinVA - roughly how much practice did it take with the new gun before you caught up to your performance with the Les Baer?

JHC

04-11-2012, 03:21 PM

I totally get that there are a thousand critical tasks these warriors have to master in addition to pistol shooting.

When I referenced the million rounds of .45 in a year I failed to note that figure dates back many years when there were not nearly as many operators as today.
I friend of mine in NC shoots with some active duty Army NCO's. He's seen their log book where their team was closing in on 30K rounds of 9mm (through Glocks interestingly) for that month. A friend of mine who is former active Army SF but now a Nat.Guard Grp with multiple GWOT deployments, has related how his half strength team went through thousands of rounds of 9mm in a weekend drill; a National Guard unit. And to watch him shoot, yeah, that made sense as he was strong.
I just think a lot of these guys shoot a lot more pistol than one might suppose. And this volume and the pistol maintenance required or not required is probably a factor in their choice of guns.

ToddG

04-11-2012, 03:28 PM

Especially when you have guys like retired SgtMaj Eric L Haney talking about specifics of their pistol training, and the amounts they shot.

That book has been discredited and dismissed by just about everyone with personal knowledge of the things purported in its pages.

Not saying I disagree with your premiss, just that particular source of support.

ToddG

04-11-2012, 03:33 PM

And this volume and the pistol maintenance required or not required is probably a factor in their choice of guns.

That's definitely true. When the SOCOM pistol project was first getting off the ground, they held a meeting in Tampa for industry presentations and feedback. During our segment -- this was before SIG was making 1911s, keep in mind -- there were guys from various SF Groups and SEAL Teams pounding their fists and chanting "1911! 1911! 1911!" figuratively speaking. Then the weapons program manager for a special unit that has great experience with running 1911s in high round count training and deployment scenarios stood up and scolded all of them, explaining how tremendously difficult it was to maintain the guns at a serviceable level.

His exact quote, as I recall, was "If we HALO five guys behind enemy lines, one of them has to be a full time gunsmith to keep the 1911s running."

TGS

04-11-2012, 03:35 PM

That book has been discredited and dismissed by just about everyone with personal knowledge of the things purported in its pages.

Not saying I disagree with your premiss, just that particular source of support.

Whoa! Never knew that. So is it as much an abortion as Marshal and Sanow's various writings? Do you have a good review to reference that I could read?

ToddG

04-11-2012, 03:36 PM

Do you have a good review to reference that I could read?

No, but I imagine someone will come along shortly with some Google'able info.

rjohnson4405

04-11-2012, 03:38 PM

I'd be extremely surprised......as in utterly flabbergasted....if SFOD-D was only shooting 5000 rounds or so per shooter, per year. Especially when you have guys like retired SgtMaj Eric L Haney talking about specifics of their pistol training, and the amounts they shot.

Every single dude I know from the USMC special operations community ranging from 20 years ago to today, has easily done more than that in a couple days. Talk to anyone who's been through a Stone Bay shoot package. I know people in that community who've shot more than that in their MEUSOC 1911's as part of skills maintenance while in country over a period of 4 months. A fiscal quarter could see 30,000+ rounds through a single MEUSOC 1911.

I can't speak for most tier 1 units and certainly not SFOD-D, but my brother is in Navy EOD (part of Navy Special Warfare, but shooting people isn't their priority).

I know that he shoots a ton in their training cycles, more than I shoot in a year, but they do it in a week.

Then he goes overseas and maybe shoots a couple times on his deployment if they're lucky. So, round count alone may not be a good example, because his skills do degrade based on what he was doing on a timer right after a training cycle and how he shoots upon immediately returning from deployment.

Again, not really apples to apples as far as a tier 1 "operator", but I imagine they're in the same position of being deployed for long periods of time without much shooting practice.

ToddG

04-11-2012, 03:47 PM

Whoa! Never knew that. So is it as much an abortion as Marshal and Sanow's various writings? Do you have a good review to reference that I could read?

Also, going back and reading my post, I think it's only fair to say that I was more than a little hyperbolic. I apologize. It was incorrect for me to suggest that the book is without any factual basis whatsoever. However, among folks I know from the unit, it was not well received both on the basis of its accuracy and obviously for disclosing things that are generally considered confidential.

cutter

04-11-2012, 04:01 PM

I can't speak for most tier 1 units and certainly not SFOD-D, but my brother is in Navy EOD (part of Navy Special Warfare, but shooting people isn't their priority).

I know that he shoots a ton in their training cycles, more than I shoot in a year, but they do it in a week.

Then he goes overseas and maybe shoots a couple times on his deployment if they're lucky. So, round count alone may not be a good example, because his skills do degrade based on what he was doing on a timer right after a training cycle and how he shoots upon immediately returning from deployment.

Again, not really apples to apples as far as a tier 1 "operator", but I imagine they're in the same position of being deployed for long periods of time without much shooting practice.

Very good points. How much you shoot was very dependent on where you were at in the training cycle, what your job was and what specific team you are on. I always seemed to be a staff weenie when all the cool shooting stuff came around, so I was lucky to get out and qualify. This was in the 19th SFGA.

JHC

04-11-2012, 04:10 PM

Whoa! Never knew that. So is it as much an abortion as Marshal and Sanow's various writings? Do you have a good review to reference that I could read?

Back when it was a current event, Eric Haney the guy and his book got worked over pretty heavily on SOCNET and the ProfessionalSoldiers forum IIRC.

TGS

04-11-2012, 05:53 PM

Back when it was a current event, Eric Haney the guy and his book got worked over pretty heavily on SOCNET and the ProfessionalSoldiers forum IIRC.

Yeah, can't say I hang out on those places. I only did paperwork in the military.

Just strikes me as odd....I mean, he wrote with a bias towards modesty, and always spoke well of everyone he worked with....no hints of obnoxiousness at all.

rsa-otc

04-11-2012, 06:36 PM

I had read Haney's book as well. I thought It dovetailed nicely with Charlie Beckwith's book I read back in the 80's. So I am suprised as well.

TGS

04-11-2012, 06:37 PM

I'm watching "Cowboys and Aliens" and wanted to look up a history question about the US Marshals real quick.

Thought I would add that Wikipedia states the US Marshals SOG teams as using Springfield TRP 1911's. Not sure if they meet the "elite" standard or not, but thought I'd add it to the conversation.

HoffACDC

04-11-2012, 08:54 PM

They piggie backed on the FBI Springfield Pro contract. DEA did, as well, for about 20 min, to the chagrin of the DEA 1911 guys. But then again, they get a bigger list than most Fed agencies for POWs, so...

According to a current team member, the FBI SWAT guys have gone from the P220, then the Glock, Springfield Professional, Glock, refurbed Railed Professionals/Operators with ramped barrels, Glocks. Some teams are strictly 1911, some are strictly Glock - 22s or 21s. Many are mixed.

I did the Glock / 1911 / Glock thing over the last four years. Picking up a 1911 makes those tricky shots seem so much easier. You put up with the weight, the maintenance, the capacity, the trips back to the armorer, the replacing springs, magazines, etc., because on a 25yd quality course you are making neat holes wherever you want them. Then one day you pick up your old Glock. 25yds takes a little while, but then you get the hang of it. You realize you aren't reloading as much. The gun works better, with less TLC, lube, magazine maintenance. It certainly is lighter to carry. You don't baby it - when you are doing Sniper duties the gun comes with you, not tucked away in the safe because it might get scratched, or dirty, or dusty. You don't mind a high round count day because the gun doesn't need to be cleaned RIGHT NOW, and your elbow doesn't hurt as much. You carry one or two spares and double your on board payload. You don't mind keeping your X300 on it because you still save weight. Your polos / suit coats aren't worn through from sharp checkering and hammers and safeties. You don't mind the Kydex holster that wears the finish but is so much faster.

This was at least my journey.

I use Glock because that is what I know, but insert your favorite plastic blaster and the analogy works the same.

Ed L

04-11-2012, 10:59 PM

secondstoryguy

04-12-2012, 12:38 AM

I did the Glock / 1911 / Glock thing over the last four years. Picking up a 1911 makes those tricky shots seem so much easier. You put up with the weight, the maintenance, the capacity, the trips back to the armorer, the replacing springs, magazines, etc., because on a 25yd quality course you are making neat holes wherever you want them. Then one day you pick up your old Glock. 25yds takes a little while, but then you get the hang of it. You realize you aren't reloading as much. The gun works better, with less TLC, lube, magazine maintenance. It certainly is lighter to carry. You don't baby it - when you are doing Sniper duties the gun comes with you, not tucked away in the safe because it might get scratched, or dirty, or dusty. You don't mind a high round count day because the gun doesn't need to be cleaned RIGHT NOW, and your elbow doesn't hurt as much. You carry one or two spares and double your on board payload. You don't mind keeping your X300 on it because you still save weight. Your polos / suit coats aren't worn through from sharp checkering and hammers and safeties. You don't mind the Kydex holster that wears the finish but is so much faster.

As someone who's carried both on duty this is exactly my experience. One thing I can say for the ole' 1911 is that if you end up going fisticuffs with someone they make an excellent bludgeon.

Steven C.

04-12-2012, 01:49 AM

Delta members in Afghanistan, circa 2002. Can you make out what they have in the holsters? Photo appears in "The Men, The Mission and Me" by Pete Blaber (on right). It is a great book and I am re-reading it. I seem to recall him writing in the book about sleeping with a Glock under his pillow while in Kosovo in the 90s.

http://i.imgur.com/lprfk.jpg

TCinVA

04-12-2012, 07:15 AM

This stuff needs to be stickied. One of the best explanations I have ever read for both why someone might still reasonably choose to shoot 1911's, and why they really probably shouldn't.

Question for you, TCinVA - roughly how much practice did it take with the new gun before you caught up to your performance with the Les Baer?

I took everything back to zero and started "from scratch" relearning the fundamentals...but with good fundamentals instruction and some disciplined dryfire it was only 3 or 4 months until I was shooting better with the Plastic Appliance Pistols than I was with my pet 1911. I still love my 1911 and if I had to sell guns it would be one of the last to go. I think I'd sell my Colt 6920 first. It would be one of the last to go because I realize at this point that I'd never spend that kind of rude money on a 1911 again unless I hit the power ball or something. I mean, I bought 2 P30's and a bunch of magazines for less money than I paid for my Baer many moons ago.

If I do hit the powerball it won't be hard to tell because the top 1911 smiths will suddenly have wait times that jump two years.

SteveK

04-12-2012, 07:15 AM

Most of these organizations adopted the 1911 while they were plentiful in inventory and pistolsmithiing was in it's prime. Armond Swenson, Frank Pachmayr and others were doing amazing things that really made the 1911 an elite pistol. Fast forward 20 years to a skinny Austrian dude looking to fulfill his country's needs and everything kinda changes after that. Wonderful as a custom 1911 is, put 50,000 rounds through it and you're probably going to need some form of maintenance. A Glock (or reasonable facsimile thereof) costs at the most 1/3 of the 1911 and requires no maitenance. If it does it is usaully a cheap, drop in solution. Forward thinking individuals realize that the 1911 platform just isn't the best solution. It took me awhile, but the concept finally sank in.

SecondsCount

04-12-2012, 12:19 PM

.... A Glock (or reasonable facsimile thereof) costs at the most 1/3 of the 1911 and requires no maitenance. If it does it is usaully a cheap, drop in solution. Forward thinking individuals realize that the 1911 platform just isn't the best solution. It took me awhile, but the concept finally sank in.
While the requirement is much less than a 1911, a Glock still requires maintenance.

Chemsoldier

04-12-2012, 01:05 PM

Getting back on track.

My best SWAG based on this thread and other open sources.

Unit, 1911 user

SFOD-D, depends
SEAL DEVGRU, No
SEAL and boat crews, No
MARSOC, Yes
AF SOF, No
USA SF, No
USA 75th RGR, No
CIA Para and Operations, Depends
UK and Commonwealth SAS, No
Canadian JTF2, No
Other NATO SOF, No

FBI HRT, Yes
NYPD Emergency Svc, No
LAPD SWAT, ?

Any additions/corrections?

From video and still pics-

Australian Defense Force Tactical Assault Groups East and West: No
Australian Federal Police Specialist Response Group: No
LAPD SIS: Some

My own observation: Seen members of about three different Kansas county and regional teams train. No 1911s.

I dont know a lot about tactics (I just shoot at targets on a range) but I had a guy who used to be on a special team (Law enforcement) tell me that he would be concerned about the 1911 as a sidearm when taking down what he called "linear targets." The way he explained it was that if you were taking down a train or airliner and you were the #1 man going down an aisle and your long arm went dry or malfunctioned you would have to transition to your handgun and that handgun would have to go for the rest of the distance of the aisle even if it was a long distance, you cant stop. He was concerned with the single column magazine and its capacity. Basically you have to keep moving. With all your gear, you cant pass the #2 man to the front reliably, you cant stop to get your primary back up, you must keep pace with the #1 man on the stack going up the other aisle (if a wide body airliner), if you have to reload your pistol than you must but it is stupid dangerous to be walking up an aisle while changing mags.

Chuck Haggard

04-12-2012, 01:10 PM

In talking to the few guys I know in the .mil special community I was surprised at the number of Glock 19s and 22s that we have quietly deployed.

I note that Kyle Lamb is not a fan of the 1911 at all, and speaks to specific failures of the 1911 in operations, his first experience being during the Blackhawk Down fight when more than one Delta guy had to transition to his secondary and found it wasn't working straight out of the holster due to dust. I note that SGM Lamb carries an M&P now that he can carry whatever he wants.

Kyle DeFoor's thought's (stolen from M4carbine);
I appreciate the 1911's innovations 100 years ago. Without it we would not have the modern semis we have. But seriously, 7 shots? mediocre performance without heavy expensive mods? and a caliber that still is not proved is better than 9mm? - not for me.

Odin Bravo One

04-12-2012, 04:40 PM

Thanks for your S.M.E. input.:p

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I'm not going to spill what I know, and besides it is MUCH more entertaining reading the speculation.

MadMax17

04-12-2012, 04:57 PM

In talking to the few guys I know in the .mil special community I was surprised at the number of Glock 19s and 22s that we have quietly deployed.

);

The SF team we had with us in Afghanistan all had G17's. And no SERPA's ;)

Steven C.

04-12-2012, 05:42 PM

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I'm not going to spill what I know, and besides it is MUCH more entertaining reading the speculation.

We've had seven plus pages of speculation. Please, crush it with reality.

Al T.

04-12-2012, 05:46 PM

Steven C., darn if that doesn't look like a Tokarev to me.

Steven C.

04-12-2012, 05:52 PM

Steven C., darn if that doesn't look like a Tokarev to me.

The guy on the right is Blaber. In the holster on his right hip you can see the square rear outline of a Glock. The gun on the guy on the left is at a very odd angle. If you look at it long enough, it looks like a G19 in a Comp Tac holster.

Tamara

04-12-2012, 07:31 PM

Steven C., darn if that doesn't look like a Tokarev to me.

DFTT

JHC

04-12-2012, 07:46 PM

Like Highlanders and Watchers. ;)

Steven C.

04-12-2012, 10:51 PM

DFTT

I don't know that one. Please elaborate.

mnealtx

04-12-2012, 11:00 PM

I don't know that one. Please elaborate.

Don't feed....

lamarbrog

04-13-2012, 12:49 AM

I did the Glock / 1911 / Glock thing over the last four years. Picking up a 1911 makes those tricky shots seem so much easier. You put up with the weight, the maintenance, the capacity, the trips back to the armorer, the replacing springs, magazines, etc., because on a 25yd quality course you are making neat holes wherever you want them. Then one day you pick up your old Glock. 25yds takes a little while, but then you get the hang of it.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I think age has a lot to do with the perception of accuracy on the various platforms.

Being fairly young, I have really grown up around "wonder nines". I know for a fact I shoot a bare bones Glock better than a NightHawk or a Kimber. One of them is at home in my hands... the other is a foreigner. Sure, the Glock has a plastic two stage trigger weighing it at about five pounds, but it is a trigger I am intimately familiar with. Could I learn to shoot a 1911? Yeah, I could, but that doesn't mean it would be natural to me.

It's like learning to ride a bike- you never forget. For someone who grew up around a 1911, and then learned to shoot the latest generation of pistols out of necessity, I can definitely see how going back to that 1911 can make "those tricky shots seem so much easier".

Last week I shot IDPA with a Glock 19 with stock sights, trigger, and barrel. I tied with a gentleman shooting a 1911 "race gun" for most accurate shooter of the evening. Had we switched pistols... I guarantee I would not have shot as well, I can't say how he would have done. It certainly is not a bulls eye competition, but both guns did their job well.

Tamara

04-13-2012, 06:03 AM

It's like learning to ride a bike- you never forget. For someone who grew up around a 1911, and then learned to shoot the latest generation of pistols out of necessity, I can definitely see how going back to that 1911 can make "those tricky shots seem so much easier".

I carried Glocks for, like, a decade before switching to 1911s. Heck, I only owned a couple of 1911s, and those briefly, before '00 or so. (And I didn't "grow up" around 1911s, either. My parents wouldn't even let me have a BB gun. :D )

A pistol that has a 4# trigger with only a tenth of an inch of travel and is mechanically capable of stacking bullets at 25 yards is going to be easy to shoot accurately, no nostalgia required. In fact, that short-travel, light trigger is part of the reason I got away from carrying 1911s. Press-outs and SOM at my first AFHF class were very hard for me because of the almost complete lack of take-up on my gun's trigger; the "go button" that was such a help for slow-fire target shooting became a hindrance.

ToddG

04-13-2012, 06:44 AM

Last week I shot IDPA with a Glock 19 with stock sights, trigger, and barrel. I tied with a gentleman shooting a 1911 "race gun" for most accurate shooter of the evening. Had we switched pistols... I guarantee I would not have shot as well, I can't say how he would have done. It certainly is not a bulls eye competition, but both guns did their job well.

There are just far too many variables there to place much emphasis on weapon selection.

While I agree with the general premiss that individuals tend to shoot better with the guns with which they're most familiar, as Tam points out there is a certain inescapable mechanical truth when it comes to heavy pistols with light, short trigger breaks. Whether one particular individual is unfamiliar with the best way to use that trigger doesn't change the fact that, objectively, such a trigger has certain advantages for certain shots.

OTOH, one thing I see fairly regularly in classes is that the 1911-style trigger can be a lot more susceptible to trigger snatch/anticipation when shooters start going fast and have to be thinking about things other than just trigger control. Past a certain point, as speed increases so must the trigger pull weight to maintain the benefit that the 1911-style trigger delivers. The shooters most often held out as being rock stars with a 1911 tend to run very light triggers... so light that most of us here would probably deem them inappropriate for concealed carry, LE, or .mil use.

_JD_

04-13-2012, 08:46 AM

I carried Glocks for, like, a decade before switching to 1911s. Heck, I only owned a couple of 1911s, and those briefly, before '00 or so. (And I didn't "grow up" around 1911s, either. My parents wouldn't even let me have a BB gun. :D )

A pistol that has a 4# trigger with only a tenth of an inch of travel and is mechanically capable of stacking bullets at 25 yards is going to be easy to shoot accurately, no nostalgia required. In fact, that short-travel, light trigger is part of the reason I got away from carrying 1911s. Press-outs and SOM at my first AFHF class were very hard for me because of the almost complete lack of take-up on my gun's trigger; the "go button" that was such a help for slow-fire target shooting became a hindrance.

Then maybe the AFHF :text-book" approved press-out is not something one should be doing with a 1911. Unless I'm looking at it the wrong way, the idea behind the press out is to remove as much pre-travel from the trigger as you can while extending the arms and that when the arms reach extension the slack is gone and that's when the trigger press is completed.

The main points are that the front sight moves fairly straight along the eye-target line, and the shot breaks as the gun stops moving at full extension. By doing three things at once (extending, aiming, pressing) instead of sequentially, you can save a surprising amount of time. (http://gunnuts.net/2010/12/01/the-press-out-visually-explained/)

With Sigs, HKs, Berettas, and some of your striker fired variety pistols this is sound practice. But with the 1911, that whole 1/8" - 1/4" of pre-travel is going to need be to removed @ a different point during the press out compared to the others. If done with a 1911 the same say as say a Sig 226 DAK, the 1911 shooter is going to soil their drawers when the gun discharges @ mid extension.

Not knocking going to a heavier trigger or dropping the 1911 (I've kind of done so myself) but dropping a gun due to it not being friendly with a specific technique that isn't as needed with that gun seems a little off to me. Maybe with more elaboration it wouldn't seem so, but it came off as a little short sighted. Shooting on the move is something else, can you elaborate a little more on that?

Given the low volume of 1911 shooters as discussed in that other thread. (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3836-How-Many-F-A-S-Test-Advanced-or-Better-Shooters-Used-a-Single-Stack-1911), maybe the 1911 and the press-out technique haven't really been paired up correctly to be better taught to 1911 shooters? I haven't attended AFHF yet (missed out on this years Indy class but hope to take it in 2013)

When I attended a class @ TDI last year the pretty much had the single action guys working the press out a little different stressing that you don't need to start manipulating the trigger until later in extension. It's one of those things that you need to play with for your gun. Even when comparing 1911s to 1911s there can be a huge difference in trigger quality and what is required weight/travel wise for it to go bang.

Tamara

04-13-2012, 09:02 AM

Yes, I understand all that about the different technique involved. The problem is that there is a lot of utility in being able to prep your trigger as you refine your sight picture; my fingers are not dextrous enough to do any trigger prepping on a good 1911 trigger. (It's one reason I like DA revolver shooting; it gives my slow trigger finger something to do between sight pictures.)

When I start turning up the speed or breaking a shot in combination larger arm motions, like a draw or after a reload, it's also way easy for me to snatch that short, light trigger, as Todd mentioned.

All that leaves aside the basic issue that it's a lighter pistol with a lot more BBs; after a decade of concentrating almost entirely on roundguns and 1911s, long strings of fire with the M&P still have me thinking "Holy cow, this thing's still got bullets in it?" and my lower back isn't sore at the end of the day from two+ pounds of steel pressing on my sciatic nerve.

It's okay, I'm pretty cool with having switched platforms.

JohnN

04-13-2012, 10:21 AM

All that leaves aside the basic issue that it's a lighter pistol with a lot more BBs; after a decade of concentrating almost entirely on roundguns and 1911s, long strings of fire with the M&P still have me thinking "Holy cow, this thing's still got bullets in it?" and my lower back isn't sore at the end of the day from two+ pounds of steel pressing on my sciatic nerve.

It's okay, I'm pretty cool with having switched platforms.

Amazing how two days with TG can alter ones outlook.

_JD_

04-13-2012, 10:23 AM

ToddG

04-13-2012, 10:57 AM

I'm sitting at an airport diner on my phone so apologies for brevity:

With a short, light trigger a la 1911, the only real difference in the press out is the effort needed to break the shot. Conceptually it's all the same: have the sight on target and the trigger just a hair from discharge when you reach extension.

Tamara

04-13-2012, 11:01 AM

With a short, light trigger a la 1911, the only real difference in the press out is the effort needed to break the shot. Conceptually it's all the same: have the sight on target and the trigger just a hair from discharge when you reach extension.

I tried, I really did. :o

NickA

04-13-2012, 11:04 AM

I'm sitting at an airport dinner on my phone so apologies for brevity:

With a short, light trigger a la 1911, the only real difference in the press out is the effort needed to break the shot. Conceptually it's all the same: have the sight on target and the trigger just a hair from discharge when you reach extension.
I'm guessing that ties into your advice to think of it as adding pressure to the trigger as you press out, rather than increasing the distance the trigger travels.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

ToddG

04-13-2012, 11:12 AM

I'm guessing that ties into your advice to think of it as adding pressure to the trigger as you press out, rather than increasing the distance the trigger travels.

Exactly. You essentially want to achieve 100% trigger pull weight at full extension.

Because many people insist (unconsciously) on going from zero to100% all at extension with 1911's, it exacerbates the dip/anticipation problem. The same problem plagues some Glock (and similar) shooters... they don't get aggressive enough with the trigger.

JM Campbell

04-13-2012, 03:17 PM

Exactly. You essentially want to achieve 100% trigger pull weight at full extension.

Because many people insist (unconsciously) on going from zero to100% all at extension with 1911's, it exacerbates the dip/anticipation problem. The same problem plagues some Glock (and similar) shooters... they don't get aggressive enough with the trigger.

Ding....Ding....explains exactly how I was slamming the LEM.

0-HERO in .005 seconds....fail.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk

lamarbrog

04-13-2012, 11:54 PM

Yes, I understand all that about the different technique involved. The problem is that there is a lot of utility in being able to prep your trigger as you refine your sight picture; my fingers are not dextrous enough to do any trigger prepping on a good 1911 trigger. (It's one reason I like DA revolver shooting; it gives my slow trigger finger something to do between sight pictures.)

With the exception of the revolver, this is how I feel. I shoot better with a trigger that has some take-up to it. I can prep the trigger and know exactly when the shot is going to break. With a 1911 trigger that is tuned too light, as many of them are for my tastes, it's pretty much just a matter of touching the trigger and at some point very shortly thereafter the shot breaks whether I was perfectly lined up or not. I am never exactly sure where I am in the travel, because it is too short, light, and smooth.

I'm far from being any sort of elite operator, so this doesn't count for much. I'm just a plinker that will occasionally play one of the shooting games.