1911's Suck!

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I'm dumping sand in my Kimber and dropping it off a 10 story building, then I have bigger issues then what gun is my hand. Those stories of doing that to a gun are a good sales pitch, but damn worthless in real world practicality. If my gun is being drawn for defense and it falls 10 stories, I have much bigger things to concern myself with, like running. Those sand, water, and tall buildings stories are a good marketing scam, but are absolutely worthless for what a gun is supposed to do.

JR
 
You're missing the point, Nifer. The point is, 1911s are old technology---OLD TECHNOLOGY. And as such, it is possible to supercede it with something better...thirty, seventy, or a hundred years after the initial plan was laid out (as with Lugers, Glocks, 2011s, etc.) The issue is how reliable, durable, and easy to maintain it is. Yes, I do believe that as time goes by our craft gets better, not worse. And no, those Glock "stories" are not mere fabrications. They actually were tested under those conditions. But why am I arguing with you? The blind hostility, twitchy reasoning, and overall lack of composure among you 1911 overly-sentimentals unconsciously betrays your hidden doubt regarding the respectability of the Colt/Browning design.
 
Last edited:
Convince me, if you can, that right after dumping sand on them, pouring water over them, and dropping them on a sidewalk from the top of a ten story building, you would choose a 1911 over a Glock to put down an attacker.
Click to expand...

I don't have to. Enough GI's have faced similar circumstances and their M1911A1s still worked well enough to save their lives. A Glock is just as likely to break.

And BTW I didn't use any inflammatory remarks. I pointed out nobody in particular, and have certainly heard a LOT worse remarks in the past on this forum. If you'll read my comment again you'll notice I'm not saying folks are imbeciles for CHOOSING a Glock (as a matter of fact I own one myself). Only those who want to call me one for not being with the "in" crowd.

"Old technology"????? So what?!?
 
I object to the premise that "old technology" equals "bad technology". This seems to have been offered several times in this thread.

There are many valid criticisms of the 1911, but "being old" is not one of them. A criticism needs more substance than that.

I love 1911s. I love bolt action rifles with nice wood. I love many other things. I would have to say these items do not "suck".

I happen to think that Browning's locking breech idea is very good. I also think there are many details of the 1911 that could be improved, faults that don't exist in various modern handguns. I also believe the 1911 points and shoots like no other handgun.

It may need to be voiced once again that 1911 is a whole category of varying guns from many manufacturers over the last 90 years. If someone says "3rd generation Glock 21" I should be able to say "post 2000 Colt 1991A1". Model against model. Otherwise I should be able to respond with "polymer striker fired guns suck". I don't think many would make a blanket statement like "double action revolvers suck".

I'd like an HK USP in .45. In blued steel. With pleasing lines, a narrower slide, and nice wooden grips. With a pony :)
 
Of course the 1911 has faults. Plunger tubes come loose, extractors lose tension, plus the thing is a bit heavy to start with.

But it is also a weapon that has been involved in some of the worst situations human beings have ever encountered. It has saved many lives, and you'll find more HONEST combat veterans singing its praises than cussing it out. The biggest critics of the 1911 in the military are folks who never fired a shot in anger and did nothing but lug them around all day long.

But I digress. It no longer looks "tactical". No flashlight rails, no polymer frame. No double-stacked magazine. No lasers, no batteries. Why yes, it IS old technology. All it can do is fire a big fat bullet at the exact point I want, and can do it again and again less than a second apart. I don't need my gun to do anything else.
 
People try to make it seem like the difference between a 1911 and modern pistols (Glock or HK USP) is analogous to the leap from cap and ball to cartridges. Pure Propaganda. Modern guns are basically more high tech looking and more convenient in terms of maintenance and safety features. But in the business of saving your neck, even in todays world, the 1911 takes a back seat to no one. There are lots of badly made 1911's but a properly manufactured 1911 (in the spirit of John Browning) is a wonderful piece of ordnance.

Modern guns are like cars with an automatic transmission but a 1911 is like a car with a 5 speed manual. Those who aren't used to it complain about how its complicated and inconvenient. But those who regularly operate it understand its virtues.

All the combat vets from WWI to Desert Storm who relied on the 1911 and praised its performance overshadows the usual criticisms I hear (usually those who never used one in combat). I think I'll side with vets on this one.

Its not the best choice for everyone but the 1911 has a history that no handgun can touch. Not even the Colt SAA IMO.
 
Old technology? Consider that the 1911 design is based upon a modular concept. Doesn't sound so old to me. I wouldn't put words or deeds into Mr. Browning's mouth, but from what I can see, the pistol is designed to be able to change parts as they wear. Man made stuff does that. Some scoff at the barrel bushing setup, but I have a pre-enhanced series 80 that I am desperately trying to wear out, but so far I have succeeded in wearing out 4 barrel bushings in 80,000 rounds. If I had taken the second $10 bushing and hand fitted it, I probably could have gone a longer distance-we'll see. I fitted the 4th bushing by hand. Does anyone sell quality barrels or slides for $10 a throw? I haven't found them but would be interested!
Convenience? Not a bewildering number of parts, but something I can detail strip and reassemble in minutes, that with a Series 80.
Pounding tent pegs? How does a Glock hold up? Never tried it but did one time with my steel pot and the DI chewed me for denting it:D
There are those who make the 1911 design in double stack, plastic, aluminum, and compact if that makes an advantage for the individual. Most of the other designs copy or are modifications of the dropping barrel Browning design, so the crowing of SIG's and whatnot confirms, IMO the correctness of JMB's invention with Beretta locking block being the obvious exception. Sure, some of them have DA, DAO or Idon'tknow, but if "modern" technology is so needed, where is it? All I see is trigger controls and safeties on the new pistols.
Safety is a training issue, not just a function of controls.
 
Can you just imagine how good most of the worldclass shooters would be if they would just quit shooting those damn 1911s? You'd think that they would have learned by now. I guess they're just content to keep winning every match with a 1911. Sarcasim, of course.

chief:D
 
THE LAST TIME I CHECKED

The true 'elite' special operations teams (generic term for "none of your business") use 1911-pattern guns.

Those that don't at this point in time are switching to 1911-pattern guns, because the deciders are getting wiser.

However, on TV and in certain magazines you will find plenty of (gun-fumbling) 'experts' using something else (mandated, or inexpensive).

What, other than polymer materials, makes a Glock "modern technology"?

(This subject is so cute.....I really don't have a warm-fuzzy for 1911's, but I still notice it's what I wore -and wear- when things feel bad.)

Are my Redhawks obselete, too?
 
Reality check. "Glock" was the word I chose to use in my first post on this thread to represent all high tech, computer designed, and modern weapons now available on the market. I am NOT pitting Glock per se against 1911s.

1911s are good for all the good reasons that were stated above. I loooove my own Kimber Gold Match. But I will NOT back down from my choice of a "Glock" over a 1911 if, say for instance, a deranged animal was running straight for my girls. My statement obviously refers to overall, bottom line, final judgment reliablility. Odds are, you will not find me staring at a "Glock" after a major malfunction during a life-threatening event, saying: "Gee, Glocks suck".

I would not---repeat, NOT---take my Glock to an ISPC gun match. I WOULD take my 1911. The reasons need not be stressed here.

By the same token, if my life was on the line and the "Glock" and 1911 were subject to the same stringent trials I mentioned before, then, as far as the 1911, all bets are off.

Sure, some of them have DA, DAO or I-don't-know, but if "modern" technology is so needed, where is it? All I see is trigger controls and safeties on the new pistols.
Click to expand...
And composition; and action; and locking mechanism; and...etc. :)
 
Last edited:
This thread is fun. I've never seen so much BS in my life.

1. 1911s are obsolete. Why? They perform their specificed task just as well today (if not better) than when first designed.

2. 1911s are old technology. Except for the polymer frame, there is nothing on a Glock that wasn't previously used long ago. The trigger safety is from a weapon designed around the turn of the 20th century, and both the lockup and striker system has been around for decades. The SIGs are also based on designs that are decades old. The Beretta? Can we all say "high cap P-38"?

3. The elite refuse to use the 1911. BS! The FBI has issued two contracts for 1911 style weapons in the last decade for use by HRT and SWAT trained SAs. The Marines just issued a contract for parts to rebuild over 800 1911s into MEU(SOC) 1911s. Think you could take a Beretta frame from 20-30 years ago and make it an issue weapon for an elite unit? Delta also uses 1911s (which they apparently build inhouse). Care to identify anyone more elite than them?

4. The 1911 is unsafe. Hah! There are more NDs with DAs, DAOs, and Glocks! The LAPD SWAT team became famous for dismissing officers with a single ND with a 1911 but not with a Beretta because NDs with Berettas were so common. Something about forgetting to decock. Oh, you don't have to worry about that with the Glock? Well, you do have to worry about safety straps or anything else getting in to the trigger guard and setting it off during holstering. Doesn't happen with a Condition 1 1911.

I own and carry Glocks, Sigs, and have used Berettas with no problem. But I go back to the 1911 for several reasons:

1. I've found them to be just as reliable as Glocks when you don't fool around with them.
2. I shoot better with them.
3. That first shot is going to go where I want it rather than somewhere nearby as with a DA.
4. I like that easily used manual safeties.

The only problem I have with 1911s are the reassembly and I've gotten used to that. As for the comment about Catholic nuns versus Baywatch babes, that's very appropriate. Nuns tend to be intelligent and have a certain level of class. Baywatch babes use their bodies to achieve financial rewards. A lady versus a . . . object. One you respect, one you use.
 
DIFFERENT (TRIGGER) STROKES.....

I must add a few more thoughts: I have personally witnessed every major brand and type of handgun fail under the stress of competition; only people who have devoted the required training time should use guns with 'light' triggers; when comparing high-quality guns used in rigorous environments they are all as reliable as each other, BASED ON LUBRICANT; the most accurate overall family of guns are 1911's; Glock users are the (observed) worst at handling unexpected gun troubles; H&K's can KB; SIG users have nice guns but don't use them well; Springfield 1911's jam the most, regardless of magazine choice; I've never seen a Kimber part break EVER; S&W revolver shooters usually do very well (practice?); Python users make Minor, regardless of their claimed PF; leather gear has more class; Witness/P9/Tanfoglio users usually seem just a bit desparate (me included); CZ75 magazines are THE MOST RELIABLE; 40 S&W brass laying on the ground should stay there (alongside 38 Super); the two most common guns at the matches I've been to are Glocks and 1911's; Glock users rarely win their class(es); a good 1911 user can beat a mediocre MP5 user; Berettas never jam at matches; most handloaders have no idea what they're doing.

1911-pattern guns will be here for a long time; not "OLD technology", it is correctly stated they are "PROVEN TECHNOLOGY".

Putz.
 
Rick,

Labeling me as a 1911 snob because I said the tests done on a glock were stupid and pointless is as stupid and pointless as the tests. I own guns from Beretta, Sig, Browning, Walther, and Kimber. I'm not a 1911 snob, I like all guns. I have the Kimber now because a deal fell through on a Glock 17 and I feel in love with the Kimber. All I am getting at, is those tests are silly. I believe they are true, never doubted it. But why does it need to be done? Throwing the damn gun off a building? I don't see where that proves whether or not it's going to be helpful in saving my life when a bad guy wants to kill me and rape the woman with me. Glocks fit in my hand like a plastic brick. I have huge hands, and the new finger grooves on the Gen 3 models do little more then piss me off. That being said, they are outstanding guns in terms of reliability and accuracy for close qaurters situations. However, 1911s are being made with modern production and technology too. All 1911s we buy today weren't made 90 years ago, they are being made now. The new materials and production technology are being used on all modern guns, including the 1911. The design is tested and proved to be outstanding. What I like about the 1911 above most other modern designs, is you CAN customize them to exactly what you want. Hell, Kimber and Wilson both use polymer now as frames for some of their 1911s. Just because it's a 1911 doesn't mean it has to be produced with 90 year old materials and technology.

JR
 
Well, Rickmeister...

I just love OLD TECHNOLOGY. I guess that makes me a dinosaur. But wait, people like Clint Smith, Ken Hackathorn, and special forces operators (ever heard of Delta Force?) trust their LIVES to OLD TECHNOLOGY. Wait a minute, whose opinion do I trust more, theirs or combat master Rickmeister? With all due respect, you are out of your league on this one. If you shoot wonderguns better, be happy and be proud. I shoot the 1911 the best. My gun runs BETTER than any HK, Glock, Sig I have shot, and I currently own all three. I'm happy with my decision, and lifes too short to spend it arguing with inexperience. Good day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top