Probably the most annoying potential for feeding issues exists with the magazine. It's not helped by how the "blueprints" used by all the different people making the 1911, in modern form, have been described as being something less than consistent.
It is ironic that the popularity of, and demand for 1911s is what has led to the decline in its reputation for reliability.
Not being one of the "plug 'n play" pistols - meaning it's not a drop-in parts gun - can make it a more difficult pistol to maintain and repair if it's going to be run long and hard.
It
used to be a "plug & play" pistol.
It requires more owner/user familiarity and knowledge for user-level maintenance, and armorer/gunsmith support for repair (for fitting some parts).
Again, because the 1911 became a victim of its own success.
there are other semiauto pistols designs which require less owner/user training and skills, and offer more ammunition capacity and lighter weight, all of which can be important considerations for many folks.
Not sure how much less "user training and skills" you are referring to. I'm not going to argue that more modern designs often have features & advantages the 1911 does not. I will point out that virtually every one of the modern designs had 50 YEARS or more of being able to see what they 1911 does and does not do well, in every environment on earth.
The amazing thing to me is that today's pistols are NOT a quantum leap better than the 1911, only somewhat better in some areas, and arguably not better in others.
Back before everybody and their uncle Max made 1911 pattern guns, tweaking and "improving" the specs on their parts, GI and commercial Colts WERE "plug & play" guns, meaning no parts fitting was required.
I was MOS 45B20 Small Arms Repairman, back when the 1911A1 was the issue pistol. At my level of maint. I could do everything short of repairing the frame or refinishing the gun. You could bet your paycheck (or your life) that you could grab any 1911A1 from an arms rack, pull the safety, (or any other part), replace it with a part from the parts bin, or from any other gun in the rack, and it would pass its function checks and work.
With all the different makers and parts makers today, that simply isn't the case anymore.
Reputations are funny things, both good and bad, the tales grow in the telling, and over time almost always reach a point where they are no longer accurate representations of the actual facts.
A lot of marketing and sales depend heavily on what "everyone knows" and not on actual fact.
The .45 has a reputation for being uber reliable, working flawlessly in all conditions, using GI Ball ammo. It's NOT true, but its the reputation, today.
Ready combat histories and you can find many reports of 1911s jamming.
The 1911 got its reputation not because it was 100% reliable (NOTHING IS!), but because it was better than the other guns in use at the time. And the tale grew in the telling...
I'm of an age to remember the gun magazine discussions (aka arguments) about the superiority of the semi auto .45 over the revolver, because it held a couple more rounds (7+1). And the arguments of the 9mm over the .45, because it held a couple more rounds, and only ONE gun, the Browning HiPower, held more (13+1). I remember when S&W came out with the model 59, a double stack model 39, holding 15+1.
S&W sold a fair number of them, but capacity alone didn't set the world on fire sales wise. Not in those days, anyway.
Large, onboard ammo reserves are comforting. Really nice to have in those ultra rare instances when the ammo is actually
needed. Very useful for spray and pray shooting, providing your own cover fire, and those who shoot to slide lock, either due to doctrine or default.
My opinion is that for civilian self defense, the idea of needing to carry large amounts of ammo, is being oversold.
I do see a double standard in those who claim the 1911 is "obsolete" due to its round capacity, and then carry something with the same capacity in a smaller gun. When pressed on the issue, it becomes "obsolete due to round capacity,
for its size".
But they are not carrying the full size hi-cap pistols, either, they are carrying compacts. Since they aren't carrying full size guns, seems to me, their arguments about the low capacity of a full size 1911 is moot.
I know time (and tech) marches on, and someday, the 1911 will be as obsolete as the muzzle loader is today. But that day, is not this day!
