Back to the 1911.

[LSP972]

Yes, I've had to carry the issue plastic on duty but agency policy has always allowed me latitude off duty. I'm not "getting" serious about the 1911 as I've been there for years. Personally, I've never found much of a conflict between using the two designs. The 1911's safety is about as ergonomic as one can be, which allows me to use the same grip for both pistols. When assuming a good master grip on the Glock there's simply no safety to disengage, but the hand movement remains the same. The other controls are laid out in pretty much the same location. For me at least, the required skill set is more easily transferable between the Glock and 1911 than other pistols. I haven't found anything that's counter-intuitive when comparing the two. Over the years I've used both off the square range under genuine stress, not just the pseudo stress of competition, if I'd found an issue I'd be carrying an Austrian squirt pistol off duty. During a recent night qualification we ran a drill in which the shooter was required to draw and engage a steel popper at fifty yards in the dark. The available light/sighting options were the Glock's WML and tritium sights. For a total of twenty five rounds fired my hit ratio was ninety eight percent, so I'm confident with my skill set concerning the issued plastic. My training regiment is probably 60/40 in favor of the 1911, so the Glock isn't just a qualification only shooter for me. Now we get to the next question that will undoubtedly be asked: why don't I just carry a Glock off duty? My admittedly less than logical answer? Because I don't have to.

Before anyone gets excited about me jumping around between platforms ask yourself this question: how many of you have used a J frame for off duty/back up/pocket carry yet used something entirely different as an on duty or primary weapon? Stones, glass houses and all that.

Fair enough... but calling out the TRUE differences between, say, a P226 as a primary and a Jframe as a back-up, really isn't valid.

Because they are both "point'n'pull" pistols. No safeties to manipulate, just grab it and start shooting. That was kind of my point with my question. The manual safety changes things. Jumping back and forth between "platforms" certainly can be done if the jumper keeps his feces consolidated, and you are already dialled-in on that (I didn't realize you have been working 1911s in recent times).

So, you answered my question, several times over. Have fun with it.

.

[Crusader8207]

I would be very interested in trying out a factory 4" 9mm 1911 like Springfield or STI's offerings.

I purchased a Nighthawk T4 which only comes in 9mm. So far its been very reliable and have about 600 rounds of Speer Lawman 124 through it. Zero malfunctions.

[psalms144.1]

I'm also a lifelong ardent, PASSIONATE devotee of the 1911. I love everything about the way they look, feel, handle, point, and shoot. I'm even authorized to carry one on duty. There's only a few reasons why I haven't, to whit:

1. Capacity. All else being equal, on the day my gunfight happens (God forbid it does!) I know, for a fact, that there's NO WAY I want to have a low-capacity single stack as my primary. Even as much as I KNOW 9mm=.40=.45 in performance, I TRUST, in my heart of hearts, that the .45 is a "better" round. Having said that 25 .45s just is NOT equal to (or better than) 50 9mms. And, unfortunately, due to my agency's current policy, I have no access to a real gun (e.g. something shoulder fired).
2. Safety. Nyeti's arguments for the LEM as a "people management" tool have really taken root in my head. (Not so much that I've stopped carrying my Glock, mind you!). I guess I'm just not comfortable about the idea that I might end up pointing a pistol for real at a living target, and the only thing between me and the banging noise would be a manual safety and a 4# DELICIOUSLY short, light, crisp trigger pull. I say this after having watched, this last quarter, many if not most of my most experienced, "switched on" multiple deployment co-workers "wooby checking" their triggers during fairly low-stress timed drills. I don't THINK I trigger check; and I always make a conscious decision to "feel steel" until my sights are aligned, but I wouldn't bet any of my hard earned paycheck that I NEVER trigger check under stress. I guess I could devote A LOT (a REALLY LOT) of time to re-mastering and ingraining the proper time to engage/disengage the safety during drills, but, frankly, it's not worth my time (see item 1, above).

Now, if neither of those issues are in play for you, by God and all things Holy, go getcha some 1911, and enjoy!

[Trooper224]

Do you think that is as much of a problem if one carries a low-volume pistol and practices with an identical, but high-volume pistol? From my observation a lot of the issues with 1911's (or any pistol) comes after the round count is substantially increased.

These are the reasons why I've always preferred to have more than one gun, two is a must, three is better.

[Trooper224]

I'm also a lifelong ardent, PASSIONATE devotee of the 1911. I love everything about the way they look, feel, handle, point, and shoot. I'm even authorized to carry one on duty. There's only a few reasons why I haven't, to whit:

1. Capacity. All else being equal, on the day my gunfight happens (God forbid it does!) I know, for a fact, that there's NO WAY I want to have a low-capacity single stack as my primary. Even as much as I KNOW 9mm=.40=.45 in performance, I TRUST, in my heart of hearts, that the .45 is a "better" round. Having said that 25 .45s just is NOT equal to (or better than) 50 9mms. And, unfortunately, due to my agency's current policy, I have no access to a real gun (e.g. something shoulder fired).
2. Safety. Nyeti's arguments for the LEM as a "people management" tool have really taken root in my head. (Not so much that I've stopped carrying my Glock, mind you!). I guess I'm just not comfortable about the idea that I might end up pointing a pistol for real at a living target, and the only thing between me and the banging noise would be a manual safety and a 4# DELICIOUSLY short, light, crisp trigger pull. I say this after having watched, this last quarter, many if not most of my most experienced, "switched on" multiple deployment co-workers "wooby checking" their triggers during fairly low-stress timed drills. I don't THINK I trigger check; and I always make a conscious decision to "feel steel" until my sights are aligned, but I wouldn't bet any of my hard earned paycheck that I NEVER trigger check under stress. I guess I could devote A LOT (a REALLY LOT) of time to re-mastering and ingraining the proper time to engage/disengage the safety during drills, but, frankly, it's not worth my time (see item 1, above).

Now, if neither of those issues are in play for you, by God and all things Holy, go getcha some 1911, and enjoy!

The points you've mentioned are all worthy of consideration. The first point is why I'm content to carry the issued Glock on duty. When being paid I'm actively looking for encounters with bottom feeders, off duty not so much. The list of things I'll willingly jump into off duty is extremely short and quite finite. I also believe in avoiding stupid places and stupid people when I'm not getting paid for it, so I don't usually find myself in areas where roving bands from the cast of Colors or Mad Max are typically encountered. When on duty I have two handguns on my person, as well as a rifle and a shotgun in the cruiser, with around five hundred rounds of ammo between them. I feel adequately armed in that context. Off duty I feel adequately prepared with twenty five to thirty rounds at my disposal. With the Beretta and the Walther I carried a single extra mag for a total of thirty seven and thirty one available rounds, respectively. I enjoyed the thought of that extra ammunition, but didn't feel it to be a critical factor. I like to feel prepared when I go about my day and I feel a total of twenty five rounds meets that requirement in my context.

The second point is an interesting one and equally valid. However, the different requirements of on duty v. off duty carry again come into play in my mind. On duty I face routine circumstances where my pistol is a people management tool, just as Darryl describes. Of course, that's with a Glock and a five pound trigger and no manual safety, so I'm skeptical as to the real difference between that and a four pound 1911 trigger with a manual safety for that purpose. After working with the Beretta I found the TDA trigger had much to recommend it as a people management tool, but I don't have that choice so a Glock for work it is. As with the rifle, I've always been very religious about the safety being engaged when the gun isn't on target. Once, in a run and gun drill during quals I had a range master tell me, "You've got your act together, you don't have to use the safety all the time if you don't want to." I believe I called his parental lineage into question in my response. Finally and this gets back to my point about what I'll get involved in off duty. I will not jump into any circumstance unless lives are in immediate jeopardy. A petty crime or domestic at the gas pump? You're on your own and it's none of my business. The reasons why I don't carry things like handcuffs and pepper spray off duty are the same reasons why I feel comfortable with a 1911 off duty. If I'm getting involved in an off duty capacity the time for people management has passed and the time for threat elimination is upon us.

[Trooper224]

As mentioned, I rented that RIA 1911 at the range. It functioned fine for the hundred rounds I put through it and it seemed accurate enough. The example available was a double stack, which I've always found to be quite brick like in a 1911, so that was unsatisfactory. Honestly, I found the lack of recoil to be a bit disconcerting. The difference between the 9 and .45 is substantial enough that it's made me wonder about it's value as a training tool.

[45dotACP]

I suspect the reason 1911s have been basically scrapped by faceshooters has more to do with ease of maintenance...at some point, you may bust an extractor hook, split an ejector or need a new sear whilst out doing faceshooter things....doing that with a glock takes all of five minutes with a small punch...doing any of that with a 1911 takes more equipment, and a heck of a lot more know how.

Again, I don't put hundreds of thousands of rounds through my guns so maybe I'm a bit out of my lane, but for a civilian with said tools and know how, it's not so much an issue for me. So at least for me, a civilian who doesn't expend $20K+ per annum on shooting, the 1911s "delicacy" isn't an issue.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

Although I am not the individual to whom the question was addressed, I would suggest something with a 4" barrel and officer size grip frame. I believe Dan Wesson makes such a gun.

It's called the CCO and its my daily carry and has proven very accurate and reliable.
Rick

[Sawyer]

I for the most part just read these forums and always enjoyed Todd's posts but I feel compelled to comment on this particular thread. I have carried a 1911 professionally for quite some time now. This is not to say I have been monogamous the whole time. I actually started with Sigs, dabbled in HK, played with a Beretta, and bought into the Glock hype a couple years back. Oh and gave the M&P a shot. What I have learned is that they are all capable and it really doesn't matter which one you use. As far as the gun fights I am personally aware of, none of them involved multiple people assailants/suspects who were shooting/shooting back. None of them ever were impacted by rounds on hand and available. Most of them were within a relatively short distance....say 10-15 yards, with at least two being greater then 25 yards. None of the guns malfunctioned or suffered a stoppage.

The guys shooting 1911's do seem to have been more accurate, but this could be because they are more prone to train in general (not saying everyone, just the ones I know of). I know of one 1911 endurance test with accurate documentation (Todd) and his 1911 (9mm no doubt) and it was neither finicky nor was it particularly maintenance intensive and it ran just fine to high round count. I know another lesser known individual who ran one to 50k to prove they were more finicky then a modern gun, his (Dan Wesson Specialist if I recall correctly) ran fine and he acknowledged as much but was surprised. My personal experience has been Wilson-no issues beyond weakening mag springs which were resolved with new springs and 3 Springfields (2 operators and a RO) the Operators have been money and the RO had some feeding issues that Springfield resolved quickly. My current carry (Long Beach Op) has been the most reliable gun I've ever run (and has basically tied with the Wilson, one HK USP 45/an M&P/Beretta M9 commercial/ and a Glock 43 with a limited round count in that they have all worked every time). My G17 had issues feeding/double feeding and an erratic poa/poi. My Glock 19 seemed to be practicing to make me blind if I were ever to shoot it in a situation without eye protection. A second USP 45 was almost perfect but had a few double feeds I never diagnosed. My first Sig (mid 90's P226) had a couple stove pipes but very few overall.

Point is, they're all more the capable with the guy behind the trigger being the important part. From my limited view/experience of things the most important factor is keeping your cool, or more accurately, losing your cool as little as possible. I personally shoot the 1911 faster and more accurately then any other type of pistol I have tried, its thinness also makes it comfortable (despite the weight) IWB for me. Would my confidence in it help me be more confident in an actual confrontation? I don't know, but it can't hurt.

If you're worried you won't keep up with maintenance cycles, it's simple, buy one, shoot a few thousand rounds to verify reliability. Buy a second and shoot the crap out of it for training and don't worry....problem solved. As for the military's preference, my situation is different then theirs so their needs don't necessarily translate. I will say that I've gotten to go to some pretty cool training over the years where some of these guys have been present. NSW didn't really seem to care about pistols and said the Sig was fine, a Marine Recon guy thinks the 1911 is still the king, a few Army guys were split on different options with one who was in a certain unit saying the current views shared on the 1911 are certainly not homogenous among all of them and that some ( don't ask for names, he didn't give any) are blowhards who talk more then they should.

In short you matter a whole lot more then the gun. Shoot what you shoot well and have confidence in. As far as I'm concerned the only disadvantages that a 1911 really has in 99.99 percent of situations is added cost of entry and weight. There's a reason why I keep coming back to it. I will say that if I ever wanted gun guys to think I was cool, I'd grow a neck beard get some forearm tattoos, and show up with a 2nd or 3rd Gen Glock 19 but since I've moved past group think it's probably not going to happen.

[RevolverRob]

If you don't appreciate the feel of an all-steel full-size 1911 when carrying and shooting it...you're a pinko-commie-fascist-Nazi-thug. - There I said it -

I love my Browning Hi-Power, it took a while but for a double-stack bottom feeder it does precisely what I want. But if I were selecting from among a pile of handguns to carry to the end of the earth and a Colt 1911 was in the pile, I wouldn't be picking anything else. And that's coming from a revolver guy. I always think I'd reach for my GP100 when the balloon goes up, but if there is a 1911 next to it, I pick it up instead.

I hope you are thoroughly enjoying your 1911-love, keep-on keeping-on.

-Rob