1911's, I dont get it.

[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.

[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.