An interesting take on the Glock vs. 1911 bit

Perhaps just my opinion, but I see 1911s and Glocks on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Both are excellent firearms with almost totally opposed ideologies in design. ie. metal/plastic, single stack/hi cap, SA / DAO(like), two safety controls / internal safeties, etc, etc.

Most semi-auto pistols fall somewhere in between them having features more like one or the other.
 
FRESH FISH!!!

Hey all! Yeah, I'm a newbie, and yeah, I'm gonna chime in on this issue.

Not really from a gun family, but got into guns at about 13. Dad bought a Glock 22 at my urging (pre-ban, etc.). Ruger 10/22 was the gift for the following birthday/Christmas.

Been in and out of shooting since then, but very recently got back into it with DrStrangeLove (another newbie here). Keep in mind that I'm still improving my skills.

For some reason I can't shoot the Glock well. I know it's a problem with me and not the gun, but it is quite annoying to be putting 'em in the 9 and 10 ring at 25 feet (slow fire target) with by the Doc's Sig 229 (in .40) and have 'em scattered all over the paper while trying twice as hard with the Glock.

I can put all 17 rounds that my +2 mags hold on the paper at 50 feet, but it's quite messy... and that's with a 3.5 pound trigger.

Then I shot a Springfield Loaded TRP... :D . Me likey. Me likey so much that I had 'em order one right there on the spot. My only regret is that I had just purchased a Ruger 22/45 an hour or so earlier... the wait is already killing me, and I've got another 5 weeks before I can walk out of the shop with it.

Accuracy-wise, the TRP outshone the Sig... which says a lot in my book. Chances of me going back to a Glock are somewhere in between slim and none. But, that's just ME. The Glock versus 1911 debate is pretty one-sided in my limited world view... as long as you spend the money on a 1911 built by a good company.

I've only really shot one other 1911 (yeah, I know... poor me). It was a Charles Daly (I'm taking donations for therapy). The drill was as follows:
Fire
Pull slide back; manually lock slide open
Eject magazine
Use Glock's cleaning rod to push spent cartridge from barrel
Reload half-fed round that was pulled from the mag when it was ejected
Insert magazine
Release slide
Fire and repeat above steps

Good news is I got really good at this drill after firing 200 rounds through it... but, I would have to take a Glock over a Charles Daly 1911 any day (that's where the "slim" comes in).

Still got a week until the little Ruger comes home, but it's the TRP that's got me chomping at the bit... luckily, the shop that I bought from has its own range, so i get to shoot the 2500 rounds of hardball that I bought at a recent gun show once the gun's delivered.

I really didn't think I had an addictive personality... until I got back into this wonderful sport of shooting. Now, let's see what it'll take to get a CCW permit here in San Bernardino County, CA.


Man, talk about on- and off-topic... multiple personalities will do that to ya.

Be seeing y'all around... and to the moderators and admins: GREAT SITE!!!
 
As in most debates, valid points can be made for both sides. Support for one or the other typically springs from which is owned and used. I've owned four Colt 1911s, one Kimber, and five Glocks. To paraphrase Ed Abbey, it's the differences, not the sameness, that create the tension and the delight. Simply put, 1911s and Glocks are great guns, but in different ways. Why not enjoy both?
 
Dear Ceol Mohr:

You forgot another little distinction - Every time you pull the trigger on the Glock, it goes "boom".

Every time you pull the trigger on the 1911, it might go "boom.":D :D :D
 
How old a design is seems to be a big negative as the concept that newer is better seems to permeate the 1911 Glock comparisons.

One of the arguments made by Glockies is that the 1911 design is old, but the Glock design is new. As noted above, the striker design of the Glock is old as well. More over, the 9 mm round precedes the .45 acp and therefore is much older.


In this cases, the issue of age is not relevant. I have yet to see anyone provide a justification for why older aged designs detracts from the usefulness of the firearms. We continually use old technology and designs in everyday life and even in guns. The major principles of firearms are hundreds of years old, yet we still use firearms. The same can be said for other technologies such as the wheel, writing, language, etc.

The concept of design age in the comparison between 1911s and Glocks really is not relevant or valid.
 
I still don't like plastic guns.
Make me a steel frame Glock and I may change my mind about them. Oh yeah and make it affordable.

And while you're at it gimme steel sights and magazines too!

Yeah, yeah, yeah I want it all. That is why I like 1911s.
 
I think Jim Keenan's post is right on. There is only one Glock but there are a multiplicity of 1911-type pistols. Need to be specific about the particular 1911-type you're writing about. Otherwise you're not really comparing anything.

Same thing about AR15-types. There are many AR15-type rifles but only Colt made THE AR15. Quality of clones vary from excellent to suspect as hell. :rolleyes:
 
Hmm...so....it seems to me the two designs are about...equal. The only practical difference that they can't mimic is the fact that the 1911 is hammer fired while the Glock is striker fired.


Nightcrawler - if you really believe this - you haven't much trigger time with a 1911.
 
If you recycle your 1911 you get more money than for the Glock. Better investment.

Steel biodegrades better as well. As a result of these two points, the 1911 is more, "Earth friendly". We, therefore, all have an obligation to buy more 1911's.

(flash to a future of children wading knee deep through used up Glock frames)

Think about it.........:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top